Democratic Sentinel, Volume 19, Number 39, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 October 1895 — FREE WOOL POPULAR [ARTICLE]

FREE WOOL POPULAR

HIGHEST AUTHORITY ARGUES AGAINST DUTIES. Ohio Republican Orators Unconsciously Play Into the Hands of Democrats—Judge Babb’s Concise Refutation of High-Taxers’ Claims. Lesson of England. The Dry Goods Economist, the leading organ of the dry goods trade, has an article in its issue of Sept. 7 entitled “Profitable Wool Growing—Why the American Farmer Should Need No Protection on the Product of His Flock.” It produces from the United States Government report “Wool and the Manufactures of Wool, 1804,” the following diagram showing the comparative production ofVoois in the different countries of the earth: Australia. Russia. Argentine Republic. United States. United Kingdom. All other countries. The Economist reasons as follows: “Most people will admit that the doctrine of free raw materials is, theoretically at least, right and generally justified by circumstances and conditions. Generally speaking, the only application of the theory to which exception is taken is in the matter of free wool. In spite of the general benefit conferred by the abolition of the duty on wool it is still claimed in some quarters that the American wool grower is entitled to protection from foreign competition. “Yet why he should be thus favored it is difficult to see. Certainly he has

had plenty of time and a fair chance to show what he can do in the way of producing wool profitably, and if he has not succeeded it seems hard on the textile manufacturers that they should be debarred front free entrance into the world’s markets, when they wish to purchase wools of other classes than those produced in this country. “It would certainly seem that the domestic wool grower has not yet made out a good case for himself, since in spite of the enormous difference in area this country’s production of wool Is not so very far ahead of that of Great Britain. Small as the latter country is in size, in the production of wool she stands fifth among the countries of the world.” It says that the surprising fact that England, with high-priced and highly taxed lands, can compete freely with Australia, the Argentine and the sheep raising sections of the United States, with their cheap grazing lands and other natural advantages, is partly accounted for by the enterprise of English wool growers. Without peculiar fitness of soil or climate excellent results have been obtained by careful breeding and by confining each breed of sheep to the setions to which it is best adapted. The Lincolns, the Leicester, the Cots Wolds, the Soutlidowns are well-known varieties of sheep sought after by sheep breeders in all parts of the world. Continuing the Economist says: “The lesson is obvious. If the English farmer, handicapped as he is, can make a success of sheep raising and wool growing, the American farmer, with cheap land and other advantages, ought to be able to compete at least equally well with the other wool-grow-ing countries. It would seein that the American woolen manufacturer would better recall the old adage that ‘charity begins at home,’ and look out for his own interests, leaving the American farmer to study out the secret of successful and profitable wool growing.” When such a representative journal as the Dry Goods Economist takes this position it is evident that free wool has become popular with manufacturers and dealers and that they will in future not assist McKinley or the Ohio political wool growers’ association in putting wool back on the dutiable list. Free wool has made friends and ip doing so has weakened the support of protection. The arch of protection is unstable without the keystone of free wool. Can the Republicans replace this keystone?

The Campaign in lowa. In lowa, as in Ohio, the Democrats propose to force the fighting on State issues. Fully three-fifths of Judge Babb’s speech at Cedar Rapids, opening the campaign, was devoted to such issues: Yet, as in Ohio, there is no disposition to evade national issues or avoid the ilefense of Democratic national policy as expressed in the new tariff law. Regarding the tariff, Judge Babb restated very clearly the difference between a Republican tariff for protection and a Democratic tariff for revenue. He made it as clear as day that there is a very wide difference between a tariff purposely attended to enable favored classes to raise the prices of their products and thus to increase their gains out of the earnings of those not so favored and a tariff intended only to bring revenue into the public treasury for the necessary purposes of the Government. Judge Babb clearly exposed the injustice of a tariff of the former kind, and especially emphasized the injuries inflicted by it upon its victims, especially farmers, whose industries are such that no law can increase the prices of their products. But Judge Bdbb was especially interesting when he passed from the discussion pf the general principles underlying tariff laws and spoke of the effect of the law of Aug. 28, 1894. He recalls the Republican predictions that this measure, “like a cyclone, was to sweep out of existence all our manufactories” and spread dire faster and ruin everywhere, and then proceeds to state the facts. He first shows from the record that the new tariff, so far from reducing the revenue, as was predicted, has increased it. He show s that while the customs revenue for the last eleven months of the McKinley tai'iff was only $112,641,553 it has been $145,752,320 during the expired eleven months under the new tariff. An increase of $33,000,000 in eleven months under the extremely unfavorable conditions which prevailed when the law first went into effect Is not a bad showing. Then he proceeds to direct attention

to the well-known fact, the fact which all the organs of- McKinley ism are forced to admit in their news columns if not editorially, that out- manufacturing’ industries have not been swept from the face of the earth. On the contrary, business has been steadily reviving, the wheels of industry have been resuming their revolutions, more men are employed than under the McKinley law and their wages have been Increased. There is nothing in this for Democrats to be ashamed of, except that they were not courageous enough to go further than they did and give the country a more liberal and, therefore, a more beneficent tariff law. The Ohio Candidate and Issue. The Republicans of Ohio make no secret of the fact that McKinley is their candidate for I’resldeut, logical or illogical as the case may be. McKinley’s platform is, therefore, a matter of some public interest. Ip thf first place, he does not seem to look for auy tariff legislation for the next two years. After that he predicts there will be some legislation along his lines. “No man can tell what the schedules and rates may be, for these must depend upon conditions existing at the time. But this is certain, that whatever the great principle of protection to American interests and labor indicates as essential to good wages, expanding production and general prosperity these will be the rates that are bound to prevail. Schedules may be altered and rates changed to meet existing conditions, but the principle of protection cannot be changed. It is unalterable.” Translated into good, plain English, this means that whatever crowd offers to contribute the most fat to the tank containing the lubricant for the Republican machine will get the kind of schedule and the kind of rates it wants. The real infants among the industries will get the marble heart, because they are too lean to contribute to the campaign tank. It was so in 1890; it will be so if tlie people give the Republican party, with McKinley at the head of it, an opportunity to make another application of “the great principle of protection.” "Reciprocity, too, will not be overlooked,” says McKinley. “A policy will pot be abandoned * * * that takes the products of other countries which we do not produce on condition that they freely admit our products and manufactures into their markets on terms of mutual advantage and profit” Undoubtedly this policy will be restored if the Republicans are given a chance to restore it, for it Is a part of protectionism. “The great principle” underlying it is that the American people are a lot of dunces who don’t know for themselves when a trade is profitable and when it is not, who cannot be trusted to buy and sell ns they please across national lines and who need a lot of guardians in Washington to tell them what they may buy and how much they may trade. The whole “principle” is a flagrant Insult to the intelligence of a people who boast that they have no superiors in the world in a trade. It is to be hoped by Democrats that the Republicans will nominate the Ohio Nppoleon next year on this “great principle.” ‘ Whom the Coal Duty' Protect*. Mr. J. Letter, of Washington, D. C., is quoted by a protectionist paper as saying that while coal in the ground in West Virginia is tyorth 25 cents per ton, in Nova Scotia it is worth nothing, and that therefore the Virginia coal needs protection against the cheaper Nova Scotia product. Mr. Leiter would find it difficult to show why e®al in one part of the earth is naturally worth more than coal of the same quality In another part. It certainly did not cost more to produce, as it was all made before man appeared on the planet. The only explanation which can be given of the difference is that the protective tariff enables the men who own,coal lands in West Virginia to charge the mining companies 25 cents for the privilege of working, while in Nova Scotia the land belongs to the people who let men work for a smaller payment, but not for nothing, as Mr. Leiter says. Logic of Republican Contention. The Republican press have at length, after much delay, come to recognize the fact that the times are prosperous. But they all have an excuse for it. it is all due, they say, to anticipation of Republican victory in 1896. The cause always used to come before the eflect, but our Republican logicians find no difficulty in an effect that comes a long while before the cause. According to this theory, If the Democrats should win nfext year, as they are likely to do, we shall be treated to a spectacle of an effect without any cause whatever.

From Prostration to Prosperity. The McKinley law found the country prosperous and left It prostrate. The present law found the country prostrate and helped it to its feet. To say that full prosperity returned at once would be to talk nonsense, for business when so grievously wounded cannot recover in a day. But it is not too much to say that business has been improving steadily ever since, except so far as the Republican legislation on the currency has tended to i-etard it. They Care for Place, Not Principle. The Ohio Republicans are running a Foraker candidate on Sherman-McKln-ley issues. This looks like harmony, but it is nothing of the sort. The Foraker gang are willing to let the Sher-man-McKinley crowd do the talking on the stump so long as they have a show for every office in sight themselves. The Foi’aker gang don’t let issues bother them. Like Artemus Ward’s showman, they haven’t got a principle in them. Necessary Changes Made. The Hartford Times (Dem.) notices Mr. Sherman’s statement that “the McKinley law, with such changes as time may make necessary, will accomplish the purpose of tariff legislation," and says: “Somebody should tell the distinguished Senator that necessary changes have already been made in the McKinley law. They are working very satisfactorily.” McKinleyism Receiving Punctures. McKinleylsm is continually receiving punctures in its tire In the almost daily reports of wages advancing and the general resumption of factories thoughout the countiT.—Toledo Bee.