Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1846-04-16

'nn. .ts l..' ...t ..ut. h. ..
.e.l" a.'..' Hn .4t ...
.H H. uHc
....
.OH- .r... ..
greet haM. -... I..e..
sapply, wei knowing that when this stock is most
abundant compared with the demand the price will
be the lowest for all wool.
We here present the wool growers with a few
statistical statements which have BEARING unon
this subject:
Wool exported from Great Britain to the United
States lS4I, 529IIO lbs.
Wool imported into Great Britain
from the United States, 5S5g1
Balance consumed in the U. S. 470G9
g'hs shows that England was far from being a
purchaser of American wool in Al, having in fact
supplied this country with nearly half a million
pounds We have examined the commercial state.
ment for 1914, and find no wool exported to Great
Britain, whereas we imported from British posses
sons 445ll7 pounds in that year. Another fact ::
we imported over twenty millions of POUNDS of for
eign wool last year-a proof that the supply of
United States wool is not ye, equal to the demand
of our own manufacturers: and here we remark.
that'tbe supply of goods fromthe factories does not
equal the home demand for use--we export no
wooens. Give the manufacturers and wool grow
ers the home market only, and the latter cannot yet
produce wool enough to supply it. Their focks
mast be greatly enlarged TO do it
There is still another statistical statement which
goes to show that the American wool grower must
not depend upon British market. While the Brit
ash market is open to all the world fer wool at a
low duty, she in lS4I imported only So millions of
pounds-of which 81 millions were from her next
door neghbors in Germany, 10 millions from her
own possessions. and all the rest save millions
was from the eastern continent DedEct the wool
exported,from England, and the quantity of foreign
retained for consumption was but 50 millions OF
pounds. Unless her demand for wool is vastly in
creased it is therefore evident that she has nearly
full supply at hapd without the cost of transport
tation acress the Atlantic. Howsha that demand
be increased? France and Germany and other np-
lions manufacture for themselves, and others too !:
Toe force them tie extend the British trade in
cloths? We think not Shall we then open our
iree-trade project: suppose it shall be trieG-what
will the wool-grower gain by cutting off his own
home market, which now consumes annually more
wool than all the wool which was imported into
Great Britain in 1871 Assuming the amount of
domestic wool consumed in lS45 to be same as that
produced in 1899, American manufacturers used
20 millions of pounds in lS45--beiIg millions
mere than the British required for their wants in
Al. The wooi-grower cannot safely count upon a
demand in England equal 10 that new existing
here; and,T he could, 1t would be great piece OF
folly to exchange certain market Mt his own door
for precarous one three thousand miles off.
fact or two now on another branch of the sub
ject. It has often been aedged by Locofocos that
the Tariff of 1912 is partial to the manufacturers
and to prove it the rates of duties have again and
again been paraded, always with more or less un
fairness to the duty wool. We take it that " the
proof of the pudding is in the eating"-the efec
of the Tariff is to be judged by Its fruits. Unde
this Tariff, the value of imports in lSii-5 was a
follows;
Manufactures of wool, $l0057675
Unmanulacured wool, l,6S9S94
AS between the manufacturer and the woo-grower
it is thus apparent that the Tariff admits six dol
lars worth Of foreign production to compete witt
the home manufacturer to one dollars worth t.
compete with the woo-grower. But we do not re
gard the manufacturer and woo-grower as classe
with distinct interests, thus to be held up in con
trast. These facts 90 to rebut the charge of PAL
tiairy: but they are also irrcfragible arguments t
show THAI both wool growers and manufacturers re
qure additional protection at the hands of the gov
eminent. What! twelve millions year spent b
sho American people for wool and woolens art
cles necessary to comfortable subsistence, and 4
capable Of being produced here as any where
the world. With this IL million tax upon US
foreigners already, is it now the time to increase
by reducing even what protection exists This
Sir Robert Walkers proposition; for this, BIRTHS
agents in the cities and in the capital pant for thi
Locofocoism will anon struggle at Washington
and TO this even those thousand times pledge
lovers Of the dear wool-growers, the Locoioco et
itors in Vermont, are giving countenance and SUI
port We can't look that twelve million annu
tax in the face, and consent to a reduction of IL
Tariff. Remembering that it is money unnecessi
rily withheld from American farmers, America
manufacturers, and American laborers men an
women-our first impulse is to say--Let it be witt
held no longer. We export no American man,
features Of wool but on the contrary import wo
and woolens to the amount of ~ millions year
fact which proves that the wool-growers have
need Of looking for foreign market for their woo