The Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1837-1867, 1846-05-09
m Agricultural
Wool and Woollens.

Nv IIredicted that the present springs crop OF
wool would be increased ian Valu . onc-tourth,
by expectations 10 England--a prediction en-
adorsedby the North STAR We have been GU
2 riotis enough 10 notice the quantity of wool
exported from New York from Jan. TO
March 81, 1s46, tone fitl quarterly and find
that il amounts to the enormous quantity of
IVA bales--aH told !! Our readers cnn readi-
Nv see what likelihood there is ola veriication
Ofthis famous prediction Right glad would
we be 10 see q handsome advance in the price
of wool; hut, we cannot ilatter the hopes ofthe
Vermont wool-growers on the strength otthe
Gournal ofComnerce. fall its auti-t0rltf mr.
Iicles are as absurd as this, they are OF tiitling
account On this subject, the CaledOuian
makes good remark, viz. that ifd is true,as
the Locoloco papers assert, that haleblood
nIerino wool can he had in South America for
Z cents pound. British manufacturers will
not send 10 the United States for the same
kind Of wool and pay 30 or 40 cents. IT the
Lococofoco ground is true, our woo-growcrs
wiltrequre full as much protection in the
British market MS they do at home, since there,
~ well aS here, they would be exposed to the
competition Of the cheap South American
wool But there is little prospect. of British
manufacturers becoming purchasers ofAner-
ican wool, unless our own manufacturers
shonld be destroyed. If Locoiocoism can
succeed in that, thus cutting off the great
Home, market for wool--the British will be
right glad to add Amcricap wool to their stock
0fshpply, wen knowing that whcnthis stock
Is most abundant compared with the demand
the price will be the lowest for all wool.
We here piesent the wool-growcrs with u
few statistical statements which have a hear
iugupOp this subject:
Wool exported from Great Britain to the
Il Il. Snies, 1871, $40 lbs.
Wool iuInOrtPd into Great Britain
from the Emitted States, $500
9, Bllnuce con sumcd in the Il. = 4706l9
This shows that England was far from be-
ing purchaser Of American .woul in III, hav-
ing intact supplied this country with nearly
half million pounds. We have examined
slic commercial statement for 1914 aud find
no wool exported 10 Great Britaiu, whereas
w. imported from British possessions lId,4I
rounds in that year. Another fact: wo inn
ported over twenty millions Of pounds last
wear Of foreign wool proof that the supply
ufUnited States wool is not yet equal 10 the
denmd of o,lr own manufacturers, and here
W. ,rl, thlt the supply ofgoods FROM the
klctorcs does not equal the home demand for
trsc--wc export no wooIlcns Give the man
iiacturers aud wool growers the home market
oalr aud the latter cannot yet produce wool
enough to supply it. Their iOcks must be
greatly englared to do il.
There is still another statistical statement,
which goes 10 show that the American wool
grower must not depend upon British mark
ct While tie British market il open To all
the world for wool AT II low duty, she in 1871,
= imported only SIS millions of pounds-of
which 81 millions were from her next door
lIeighbors in Germany Ii millions from her
own possessions, aud all the rest save9 mil
Hons was from the eastern continent. Deduct
Al. Il ENGLAND and tho
quantity of foreign retained for consumption
was hut 50 millions Of pounds. Unless her
demand for wool is vastly increased, il Is
therefore evident that she has nearly full
supply at hand without the cost oftrluspng-
t1tion across the Atlantic. How shah that
demand be increased? France aud Germany
and other nations nlanuthcture for thcuSelve,
and Others too: eau are force them 10 extend
.he British trade in oths2 We think not
Shall we then open or O,CH markets to the
British? This is the genuine ifee-trude prof
Get suppose it shall be tred--what will thu
wool grower gain by cutting off his own hOm
,aqrkeE which now annually consumes moro
wool than all the wool which was imported
into Great Britain in 1871? Assuming the Il
mount of domestic wool consumed in lSi5 Il
he same as that produced in 1872, American
manufactures used 60 millions of pounds II
!8l5-being g miliions more than the BrtIsI
veuuired for their wants in 1871. The WOO!
grower cannot safely count upon denan
In England equal to that now existing here
aud if he could, it would be a great piece OF
folly 4, exchange Il certain market NJ hls doc
fora precarious ore three thousand miles oil
A factor two now on another branch OF
ELe subject 1t has often been alleged b.
g.ocofocos that the tariff of 1912 Is plrtial Il
the manufacturers and 10 prove 1t the rate
ofdutics have again and again been paraded
always with more or less untairness TO tn
duty OH wool We take it that 1.-The proof
The pudding is in the eotiug"thc effect 9th
Tariffs to be judgedby its fruits. Undc
,his tariff, the value of imports in 1S4l-5 wa
Manufactures of wool, e10,O57, 875
Unmanufactlred wool, l,6S0,S74
As between the manufacturer and the WOO
grower, it is thus apparent that the Tariff nc
snits six dollars worth oftoreign productlo
20 compete with the home manufacturer ), {
one dollars worth 10 compete with the WOO
grower But we do not regard the nanuiaC
1urer and the wool-grower as classes with di
tinct interests, thus to be held upin contras
These fncts go'to rebut the charge ofpartiaIit.
lut they are also irrefragibo arguments L
show that both wool-growers and manuiat
turers require additional protection ut the lianc
.,ofshe government. What! twelve millions
wear spent by the American people for WOO
and woollcns-articles necessary To comiort
bile subsistence, and as capable ofbeing pr
duced here ms any where in the world. WI
this IL millions of tax upon us To foreigner
already is itnow the time to Increase 1t by II
ducng even what protection exists! inns
Sir Robert Walkers proposition; for tai
British agents in the cities and IN the capt.