Democratic Sentinel, Volume 15, Number 32, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 28 August 1891 — THE WOOL BUNCO. [ARTICLE]

THE WOOL BUNCO.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica.

How the Farmer Has Been Beguiled by Woollen Men. nueber one. To the Editor of The Dem, Sentinel: To any wool-grower who will sit down and consider the subject of his Protection by a tariff duty on foreign wool in the same manner that he will investigate whether it will pay him best to raise wheat or oats, without reference to politics or religion, I will undertake to prove to him: 1. That the tariff duty never added one cent, and could not ad i one cent, to the price that he receive 1 for his wool. 2. That thare could be no Protection for him in a tariff duty and that his pretended protection is a bunco game into which he has been steered. This is a fair offer, but before he accepts it he should ask himself what possible motive I may have in addressing him. The question of motive is a very important one, for it determines the credibility of the witness, and this question of motive must be decided in advance. I certainly cannot benefit particularly by removing his Protection, whether that Protection be genuine or fraudulent. No other man or class of men in this country can benefit to the extent of one cent. The only benefit that can possibly accrue is the reduction on the price of cloth, which benefits every man alike and no one more than another. As the reduction of two cents in the duty on imported foreign m lada and cane juice has reduced the price of refined sugar two cents, so the reduction in the duty on foreign raw wool would reduce the price of cloth. The forty nine protected American refiners who for twenty years have produced every pound of sugar eaten in the United States lost ohe-half of their Protecion when the tax ou their imported raw material was taken off, sp that they were not benefited by the change. Was any one benefited more than another? Could he be? Would not any benefit that could possibly accrue be shared alike by all men --an even division of $1 per head. Before the suggestion is made that anybody for selfish reasons puts up any money to save each American sl, and n>J one American lees or more, would it - not be wi e to insist upon the reason why he does it being fully explained? Money is freely contrib ited, time and labor are ungrudgingly given; but for the same reason that money is contributed to foreign missions or life is risked to rescue the perishing. The men who urge the wool-grower not to listen to me, and to hold fast to his Protectioh, also have a motive. One of these men is the woollen-mill owner who buys the wool. What can his motive be? If Protection adds even one cent per pound to the price the woollen manufacturer pays the farmer, tben the 1,995 woolen manufacturers are the most benevolent business m n ever organized into a Home Market Club. If it adds the lawful am’t of protection, from 10 to 36 cents; if they wisnto pay that much mors fortheir wool than the market price, and insist upon it, spending large amounts of money yearly to induce the people to keep the tax on so that they shall be compelled to pay the farmer higher prices, the limit of numan goodness seems to have been reached.— Unregenerate men sometimes remark that theyarenot “in business for fun.” These men are. The wool-grower wLo accepts without hesitation this explanation of w oollen manufactur r’s motive will hardly believe that the man to whom he sells cis corn, oats, tobacco and other crops is equally anxious to pay him an extra price. But why are they not? Are saints engaged in wool-weaving only? If his Protection does'not add to the price the farmer gets for his wool, then it is a bunco game. Could the woolen manufacturer be benefited by deceiving the farmer —by buncoing him? He might Turn to the tariff law and observe how neatly the opportunity offers, unless ths manufacturer is too benevolent to take advantage of t. It takes four pounds of grease wool to make a pound of cloth. The farmer is protected by a tax of 11 cents per pound on grease wool, or 44 cents on four pounds. To protect the manufactuier and to enable him to pay the farmer the 44 cents extra for raw material, the tariff levies two separatejduties on imported woollen cloth. The first duty is 44 cents per pound, to compensate the manufacturer for what he pays the farmer. The|second duty is 50 per cent, for himself, that he may pay high wag* s. On apoundof cloth, valued abroad at 40 cents, and costing to land $1.04, the duty is 64 cents; 44 cents being to protect the farmer and 20 cents to protect the manufacturer. The manufacturer is authorized by act of Congress to collect this 64 cents tax from the people of the United States on every pound of wool or cloth he makes.— He is protected from foreign competition up to that amount so that he can. He alone collects it. He pays the 44 cents over to the farmer from whom he buys his wool and keeps the 20 cents for himself to pay his workman higher wages. There are no inspectors appointed to see that he pays the farmer the 44 cents. He is under no bond. It is all left to his honesty.

If the foreign duty of 11 cents per pound on raw wool to protect the farmer should be cut off then the “compensatory” duty of 44 cents per pound on the cloth would be lent off, and the manufacturer would collect only his own 20 cents from the people instead of the 64 cents. He would be relieved of the.trouble he now willingly undertakes of collecting the extra 44 cents and turning them.over to the farmer from whom he buys his wool. The farmer cannot collect the 44 cents. If he could combine and fix the price of the wool, he might. Without combinat ion there can be no protection when the local competition makes the'market price, and the competition of 10,000 brings it as low as the competition of 10,000,000; they are engaged in cut-throat competition to sell; and they must take what they can get. The manufacturers are combined in a league having nine branches. It is a private Irust governing nine smaller trusts. The smaller trusts fix their monthly scale of prices, and collect the 64 cents they charge the people. As the farmer cannot collect even one cent of the protection bounty, they collect his share when they collect their own. They even advance it out of their own pockets when they buy his wool, although they are under no ob-

ligations to do so, and although they might even make him wait until they had collected it if they were in business to make money and not for benevolence alone. Now I do not wish to say one word against these woollen manufacturers, or to cast the slightest suspicion upon their integrity. But Ido wish to call the attention of the wool-grower to the fact that if they were not honest, if their benevolence were not beyond question, their motives mjght possibly be impugned. S> ppose, just for the moment, that the same opportunity for stealing which th< se honest men enjoy should be given to a pack of rogues. Suppose that to protect the farmers, who could not combine to protect themselves, their protection should be turned over to a gang of confederated thieves, with instructions to collect 44 cents for the farm ■ ers and 20 cents for themselves, but that there should be no supervision over their accounts, no reports required, and everything left entirely to their good nature. Would they.not howl at any proposition to remove the 44 cents? Would they not contribute large sums to retain the collection of the farmer’s protection? Would they not steal every cent, vet do all that these honest men are now doing to make the farmer believe that his protection is a good thing? Do the honest men now collecting the tax after advancing it to the farmer do or sa one thing which thieves in their pbee would not do or say? So much for a question of motive. I do not impute any. I ask the wool-grower to take up the question as a business man, m a business way, and apply to it the same rule of (common sense that he wo’d apply when accosted in Now York by a stranger, if a citizen should stop and say to him: “I advise you not to cash any checks for this man. He is Long Pete, the bunco-steerer." The wool-grower might not thank the citizen for the information, but if he were wise he would certainly listen with attention to the proof and keep his money in his pockets until he learned more. That attention to my proof and suspension of judgment are all I ask from the wool-grower in the eoils of the Protection bunco-steerer.

T. E. WILLSON.