New-York daily tribune., 1856-05-24
FREE TRADE IN WOOL
10 fG1 E9i1- Of 7L> n. J.. Tribra<

that should not have a.ked the Use Of Jour
columns 20 expre-@ the y,cHs u The prDdu"e,, o.
WOOL, in r-esld 20 the mes-ure bot pf--gn.ny %
your reputation fjr giving al s6es Of questions far
beerug, ] did venture 70 give some res9ons why, Z
ny opnior, The taking IF the duty from fore. "a
grown wool would ,ts frst eT,'t, oe-troy wool
growing A. busiue-r, and a. consequence Ot that
de-uuction the manufacturers would fad Themselves
driven TO the foreign market for nearly all Their sup
pes ard that IN the end they would b. quite ~ much
Injured q the grower Of wool correspondent Of
your paper replied to and rejoned, aud then the
heavy guns Of the Editor brought into action
with the Intention it may be, to put an end 70 my say-
pg anything further through your columns. II would
De- TOO much for TO ask that reply to your h1'd
uo,S. should sppear in your PRINT but will b, que
thankful hy,uw allow me space for a very short
staterneut Of the question think :; now stands,
ana viii not trouble you further.
The ground frA taken by the advocates Of Free
trade in wool ws- that our best American grown wool
was rot good enough TO make first quality co,h, and
that it necessary to import email proportion i1r
wnrp 70 mix with our woodland that in this way
laroe demand would be created for our ~ools. Now
YOU say that the adni=son Of at least cheap wool
fre. Of duty would prove gen rally beneficial This
,rt.ars 10 me to be- ground, and 70 have much
more strength than the position first taken. We
lulort wool the average pnce Of w1ich Is little
utre than eleven cents q pound. Certainly We pro-
duce no woo that comes into competition with wool
that Is not worth much more than eleven cents
pound II IL quite probable that the wool we import -
sub ectsd to what you call "fancy valuations, and
that i- in fact worth nearly or quite twcs the Gus
tom. HOus. valuation.
Great complaint is made that blankets hanpels &C..
az iu1 ted by paying twenty twenty I'VE per cent
outy willie the wool of which they made could not
be imported without paying ttirt} per cent. Ih'' rs
uS talr and the manufacturers had better ark to have
all woon good pay the thirty per cent than 10 ask ID
have al the duty taken off of all grades of wool.
We have no dispute about the great principle
that you assert, viz I" Each branch OF our national
"iudustry is deeply interested IN the prosperous
"tivjtv Of every other There il 10 trying TO
make il appear that the wool grower desires to DO
built up the expense OF the manufacturer. AL the
wool grower asks IL that be may have just the same
protection for hi- labor a. is given 10 the maauiac
uTer If the present law unfair defective in its
detail let u al JON in making it what 1t should be.
You insist that it il for the interest Of the WOOL
growers TO have wool duty free and you say that tae
making w"Ol duty free IN England, Germany ana
France has "Quckencd the markets and enhanced the
- ne. Of wool throughout the world IL would ap
pear TO follow that, # the United States TO do
Ikewse the effect would be to rase the price Of wool
.tll higher. n the manu- ufactuTers HOvgH M1f Frtc
trad. r i-o0l e0Vd make cool higher thcy Doud not
be likely t0ror TIE me0sHTe and If Free trace will
make tie material higher Why will not Free trade
mn kc the material when turned into cloth h cher
" hy would not Free trade in iron make iron in Pena
sylvana higher II Free trade viii raise the price OF
wool why not Free trade raise the price of every
thing7 Ii the farmers ~ be asked these ques-
tobs, they would be likely TO answer that if nigh
priccs followed in case, they would IN the others
But pefler the farmers the manufacturers think
that Free traGe would make wool cloth higher, but
that it would mOst certainly make both cheaper. Tn
TRIBUsR Gays. ANY measure which will act our
% wooden machinery INTO prosperous and permanent
activity will prove Of decided benefit t. farming
" interests wOOlgrowcrs included" The truth b,
that now more wool is manufactured than grown IN
the United States by 10000 900 pounds per year,
The public int, rests would seem To require increased
activity and property for the growers rather than the
manufacturers, wbeh 1t is beyond all question true
q home demand for more than there IL home
England Is cited TO show that there more sheep
in that country under Free trade ~ wool than taere
were when wool paid duty. England raises mutton,
aud il lust as assume that the grazer5 of the
Wetern States raise cattle or their hides al is, that
England Iaises sheep for their wool.
In all that the advocates of Free trade IN wool urge,
there is one dominant idea from which everything
siarts and at which everything at last endsths IL,
they are not making money enough IN manufacturing
to suit them, and birg must he done 70 promote
thir int, rests and the whole tendency of the ppy
of the Government toward css duties on the pr0duc-
ous Of foreign countries they suppose tha the easiest
hug for em to do to lessen the piIce OF the wool
th.v manufacture by taking the prot' ction of tho
home produced. When official tables are ref. Ted l"
to show that the whole the business OF manutactur
ing is profitable, we are told that II Is humilstioh
n
the idle factories in various parts OF the country for
uroof that the business Is unprohtaOe Inc safes OF
The Manufacturing Companies IN Boston are gwen TO
shov that only small proportion OF them sell above
pnr II the business Is really 80 bad thai good ulI!s
ath the modem machinery, cannot be used at a
proft. bow is it that some Of them-thH any OF mem
can sell their itOCk above par why caahos one
factory make money as well as another II the SAN
makers of Syracuse were soUe of them making money
ana Others losing money should say that the suo-
cessful men were more prudent-more indust1onST
knew more than the unsuccessful, and Wa should hod
up the fact that part made money as pfooi poSH''e
ii al II was not the business ITSELF but bad manage
mont that led TO ruin There il necessity for gong
far 10 fud wooden factories making money, ana ne"
factories starting under the expectation OF maklos
money. But why argue tins point Inc men VINO
hnye been constructing mills and investing the'r
profits in enlal ging old mills and making stock dNi
aends since 1916 have expected to make money, ana
hevcnd all question thsy have put end KEEP opera
on more hinery than our wool growers c1uid sup.
ply with the raw material by some twenty millions OF
uoupos a wear. The manut icurng Interest has out
,,cwu the production of raw material some way, and
# Congress nterfces at oil should interfere to bnng
M the lnterest that is behlnd-pOt 10 crush H.
| am not going to turn beggar and pzss around the
hat FOR the farmers but this Is the last time sm to
SIX permission 70 contoyert your views ID your own
psrtr permit me to state how stand. OF al the
vrU0uciiOps of agriculture. excluding cotton ana
tobacco and its prOduci, produced IN l-9S -l1l'
3o ,3e4 umcd here at home, e1por4 4ng TIA;
ysa Only s35 So9,l26. This small amount Of less than
the more than fifteen hundred millions that .oi for
| home consumption The Treaty by which the pro iuc-
tol Of Canaoa, &c are 10 be adrtcd free o! duty,
has IN fact suh,cted ali the sgncuture of the Free
states 20 practical Free trace So far As Canada andthe
other Butsb able to produce against
US on a fair hcld where no favor Is shOws WOOL Is
now the only product Of New York. Ohio, &c, that is
OF ary Importance that is ENJOYING any benefit from
oui tariff laws. NesIy everything we Northern farm
buy Is largel! Protected Take the duty on if1m
" Q vii rot the interests OF Northern farmers make
them nee traders, the planters OF the ecuih