Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1866-05-23
WHOLE NO. $500
Wool Matters.
NoBLEsTowE, ALLEGHENY, Co., Pa.
April, Is. 1866.

Wool Matters.
NoBLEsTowS. ALLEeHESr. Co.. Pa.
April Is. 1896.
To tie Editor Of he Psss5vrgk Post.
Inclosed is 8 clipping from the Mirror
and Farmer N. II. containing some stric-
lures on the able speech Of the Honora-
bic W. D. Kelly, member Of Congress-
The wool grower and in fact the whole
agricultural interest have to blame them
selves and only themselves for the little
that Is generally known of the magni-
tude Of their calling. They publish less
than any other class Of citizens, and thus
they neglect the available channel to
impart information. Hence Congress
men from large manufacturing and COM
mercial cities, more particularly, cannot
fully know the necessities of the rural
population. By reference to the Yalua-
bic and very able Department of tie Ag-
ricultural Report of 1854, at page 59S we
observe that Wool Manufactures paid in
1864, So, 647, ,246,61 manufacturers tax,
and st page 603 of same report we learn
there we're but 69, ,298, ,965 pounds of wool,
the products of the United States whilst
there were So 1863, ,12S pounds of foreign
wool used to earn said Revenue. At
page 59l, of same Report we learn there
were, at July 1865, in the country %
64S, ,267 sheep valued at $154, 8O7 ,466.-
At page COL, of same report we see that
the agricultural interest of the country
was S5, ,706, ,141, ,998 in 1864, and that manu-
tactuIers, merchants and traders have
81, ,044, ,766,0 900 of an investment in the
country exclusive of California and the
late rebelling States. The curious in COM
parison may see by referring to the Re
port of page SOC, T88, how the different
investments compare.
Brethren (all wool growers are sueh)
continue to send promptly to Congress
petitions asking increase of duties on
foreign wool. Yours, &c.
.-srl-a GLENN & Bro.
Protection to American Labor
From The 1fyror and Farmer.
DR.. BoYNToN 81 have lust been read
ing speech by Hon. William D. Kelly,
in the House of Representatives, entitled
as above. 1t IS long and able speech,
as might be expected from such source,
with this exception He seems to forget
entirely that there is a sheep in the Uni
ted States, or that the wool growers need
any protection whatever. He complains
that the free trade policy of the slave
holders, which was adopted as the policy
of the country, had 8 tendency to break
down the manufacturing interests in the
free States, and that it was done for this
all the industry of the North and North
west to the production of food for their
negroes, while the negro-cloths might be
obtained from England in exchange for
cotton-thus reducing the price of both
food and clothing at the South.
know it is often said, "FiQ the coun-
try with factories, and thus make domes-
tic markets for American produce" So
I say and let US also, at the same time
furnish all the raw material for these fac
tories that our climate or the habits and
of our people can supply. 1t
has always unfortunately happened that
our legislature could distinctly see the
great manufacturing establishments with
their looms, shuttles and other machinery
in full play, and hear their noisy clatter;
but they were slow to hear the quiet far
mer st his toll and have not seemed to
notice the silent processes that produce
the wool which keeps this machinery in
profitable employment. 1t was not so
with Napoleon whom the speaker eulo-
gized so highly:
ne sal q. ODdlQ has LW6uly-uN6 Hill
lion merinos; l wish France to have one
millions :" and to this end he
sixty additional sheep-folds,
where agriculturists could get the use of
bucks without expense. This was a diff
ferent policy from that heretofore adop-
ted By our government. Our great
American system" so much talked of
in years agone, contemplated protection
to the manufacturer alone and the wool
growers might live under it, or die, as the
case might be. 1t was like the policy at
tributed to the Federal party, about the
commencement of this century "Let
government take care of the rich and the
rich will take care of the poor"
If wool could not be produced at all
in this country, or if We could not, with
proper encouragement, supply our own
then there would be some
good reason for the course pursued in the
past. But when we have millions of mon
sY invested in wool growing, and the bust
ness as susceptible of indefinite extension
it isunequaland therefore unjust, to place
q duty on cloths, so thigh as to give the
the control of prices for
his cloths, while the prices of wool are
governed by its value in foreign countries.
Most farmers at the present day sell their
wool and buy their cloth. If the duty
On foreign wool is 80 low that the manu-
facturer can use il more advantageously
han to buy domestic wool, why should
not the duty on cloths also be such that
he Farmer can buy his clothing at for
,ign prices. The wool-growers ask for
no exclusive privileges. We are not
6 Free Traders" But we are quite as
much exposed to ruin from foreign COM
petition as the manufacturers and we
Isk only equal protection.
In reality, the producers of wool, and
he manufacturers have mutual interests.
Then let them have mutual and equal