Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1846-03-19


WEATHERsFIELn, Vt, 18th March, 1896
Messrs. HIRAM DAVIS, and Lor B. CARPENTER,
Plymouth, Mount Pleasant Vermont:
GENTLEMrN,-Many avocations have prevented
my sooner answering your letter of the 9th Janua-
ry last, post marked at Bridgewater the 10th Feb
ruary If understand the object of your letter
right, it amounts to a suggestion that the wool
growers shall enter into some arrangement in order
to control the price Of wool or in other words to
afiix some price TO it which they shall deem equiv
alent to the supposed profit of the manufacturers.
Permit me to commence my reply by stating rrn-
ciple which know by over fifty years experience
proves to be the invariabe law of trade, viz, that
supply and demand always regulate prices. When
there is greater quantity of any article at market
than is necessary to supply the demand, the price
invariably falls because when the holders find but
slack demand for their commodity they are gen.
orally eager to SELL and most of them will offer the
article below the ordinary price and thus keep un-
dcrselling one another. On the reverse, when the
demand is greater than the supply, the owners of
the article will hold on and purchasers will keep
constantly overbldding each other. AS this Law
of trade is almost as invarlabe the Laws of ma
ture, am persuaded that no combination of indi-
vduals for the purpose ofre2ulaling prices can mod
ify or change them. For short time perhaps such
combination might produce some little effect but
it can only be for a short time, and in the end it
would probably react against the parties combin-
ing Suppose that we in Vermont should call a
convention in order to stipulate amongst ourselves
the prices at which will sell our wool, and sup
posing the manufacturers of State were to meet
with us in convention, could we bind them to buy
at the prices we had affixed? The wool growers
would doubtless be the most numerous party at the
convention and would, of course, aiiiX a liberal
price upon their WOOL but should this price be high
err than would afford the manufacturers living prof
it, they certainly would not buy of US. Again,
supposing our manufacturers could buy cheaper in
New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania and
Ohio than they could IN Vermont, it is obvious that
they will 90 to those states to purchase their sup
ply instead of buying Vermont wool. From the
principle laid down in the outset the demand and
supply must regulate prices, and consequently as
the manufacturer cannot regulate the prices at
which his manufactured goods TO sell, it must
follow, if he does not mean to ruin HIMSELF he must
buy his wool or other raw material at such prices
as will afford him remunerating profit for his man
ufactures, when sold at the prices which the mar
ket will afford. You must recOlect that Vermont
| New Hampshire, New York. Pennsylvania, Wes-
tern Virginia, Ohio Indiana, Illinois and Michigan,
are now to a greater or less extent wool growing
states. You must also recollect that the six New
| England States, New York, New Jersey, Pennsyl-
wanna, Delaware, Maryland and Ohio, are now man
ufacturing states. Then allow me to ask, whether
it is probable, nay even morally possible, for dele
gates of the wool growers and the manufacturers
Ol UlOSc respective SldltS, 10 meet lOgGlleI III
vention and agree to afX certain prices to the sew
eral qualities of wool? If the wool growers have
the majority as before remarked they will probably
afliX their prices so high that the manufacturers
would not abide by them. On the reverse, 1t the
manufacturers had the ma iorty, the prices would
be set so low that the wool growers would not sci
at them. In truth such convention would not a
gree upon any thing, for the reason assigned in the
preceding sentence but if they should, such an a
grcement would prove as fra as a rope of sand
| for the parties would break through it whenever
their convenience or their interest dictated It's VIC
laton. have seen two or three attempts of the
kind made upon small scale; but they have no
been adhered to in good faith for month after
wards 1t is true as you say, that the WOODEN man
ufactures have been doing very well since the tar
if of 1912, but has not the price of wool likewis
risen 30 to % per cent: In 1910 and al, and tn
early part of 40, | could not sell my wool at ali
but in 1913, IA and rs, my wool sold at as cents
| The manufacturers doubles IS during those year
might have afforded TO have paid something NOR,
for IL, but in justice to them we must acknowledge
that from 1886 down TO the first part of 1912, the,
sustained very heavy losses on all the woods which
they had purchased and manufactured, and b,
which majority Of them were made bankrupt
We therefore cannot be surprised that those who
were enabled to struggle through those dsastrou:
times, should buy with more caution. The fact is
that the terrible reyulsion in our monetary concerns
in those SIX years shut up half our manufacturing
establishments, whilst during the time the WOO
growing business particularly 1.-THE Western states
was gradually OIL the increase. This operated boil
ways against the wool grower, the lessenlng o
the number Of our manufacturing establishments
has diminished the demand, at the same time tina
the additional growth of wool increased the supply
The source of the evil of which the wool grower
has right to complain, cannot justly be traced tC
the manufacturer but it truly be traced to the
vaclating policy of the Federal Government L