, 1866-04-02
MONDAY, APRIL 9, 1865.
THE TARIFF on WoOE..


proposed increase Of the tariff on wool. ".
have mislaid the copy of Mr.. Grinnell's speech
upon which our former article was predica
ted. But that Is not essential. Els lettc,
will answer Just as well.
Mr.. Grlnncll assures us that he only ask,
the privilege OF taking as much money from
The people as tic salt boilers and hemp grow.
crs take. or course that Is what it amounts
10, for Mr.. Gfinnell fs aware tint whatever Ia
given to the wool growers, the salt boilers,
and the hemp raisers, must be taken from
somebody else. Salt and wool are among the
prime necessities Of life, and hemp would
have been in the same category If Andrew
JohnsonIhad kept his promises to "make trea-
Son odious." Poor men use as much salt and
wool as rich men. Hence the aggregate Floss
arising from an artificial increase In the cost Of
wool or salt must fall upon the whole people,
poor md r1cA alike. Now two wrongs do moi
make right If salt can be got ut Turks
Island for The DIGGING, and wool can he got in
South Amcrlca for the shcaring, any legisla
tiop Which has for It's object TO prevent us
from getting TINT salt and wool, and to CON-
pei us to take salt md wool at higher prices,
is an injury to the people, unless the diaer.
cncc In price goes into the National Treasury.
II is not proposed by Mr.. Griunell that this
difference in price shall 60 into the National
Treasury. It is proposed that It shall 60 into
his pocket and those Of his fellow wool grow
CTS and salt boilers, To that We object
Mr.. Grinnen says that be found out long
ago that grain growing would not pay In his
State; that farmers would do better nj growing
wool Very we'll, there is no objection to then
growing WOOL The only objection is to their
requiring the grain growers and other people
10 pay more for their wool than It Is worth.
If MI. Grinnel had found that neither grain
growing nor wool growing would pay in his
statc (which, by the way, seems to BE- the
logic Of his position), and had hit upon the
idea Of raising tea or oranges, he might, with
the same propsiety, say that all persons who
will not consent to The passage OF law CON-
polling the American people to pay five dol
lars pound for tea aud dollar apiece for
oranges, desire to mako hounds and barba-
rims" Of him and his fellow tea growers
and orange growers The question Of
wages has nothing to do with wool
growing, except that the wages 0,
all people arc depressed when they have to
pay an czorbItnnt price for clothing. The
real complaint Of the advocates of a high
tanf on wool lies against the favorable soil
and climate Of South America, which arc
among the bounics Of Providence to ell man-
llnd, exactly as the favorable soil and climate
oil China and tue West Indies ere among the
bountiea Of Providence In furnishing tea and
oranges at prices which bring them within
the reach Of nll. The American people can
share In The blessings which the Almighty
has conferred upon other lands If they have
the wisdom to accept them, or they can enact
laws compelling themselves to pay fifty cents
pound Tor wool. and five dollars pound for
ten. and dollar piece for oranges, and
nobody will be harmed hut themselves.
Those who furnish the products which /
70 to South America in c1change for wool
will, Of course, be out OF employment when
the trade is stopped, or their wages will be
depressed pro tdHto, aud thes and all other
persons will have to pay rs much more for
their clothing as is given to wool-growers in
the shape Of increased thrift. Is this ma
honal gain or national losss We grant there
is temporary gain to the wool l-growcrs, but
It Is at the expense TO the nest of
the community of not only the sum paid to
the wool growers, but the difference in priee
between dear wool raised at home and the
cheap wool raised in South America, IN add.
ton. To illustrate: A million pounds Of wool
can be obtained In South America for $1o3, ,0oo. |
The same quantity can be produced in Iowa
for 500 900. Now pass law which will raise |
the cost Of all wool to forty cents per pound, |
so as TO give the wool grower the amount OF /
profit which he requires. Then the million i
pounds Of wool, whether produced in Iowa or |
South Americn. will cost k400, 600. The wool /
growers hare received profit Of only &lO0, ,003
This profit OF $l00, 900 has been paid by the |
consumers Of course, and there has been a net |
loss to the country Of 0o.000 besides, that |
being tho difference between .he sum paid for |
the million pounds Of wool, and the sum which
IT might have been had for. Il the consumers
Ind been allowed 10 retain the e::;0, ,00o, which
belonged to them, they would have expended
It on the beef grower, or the mutton grower,
or the dairy farmer, or the house builder, or
On some branches Of home industry, which are
deprived Of all this wealth, because it las been
lost and nobody has got IL. And II the in
crease Of the tariff discoura ges thcimportAt1on
Of wool, as II is designed 10 do, the revenue
derived from that source Is lost TO the Treas
ury.
Bnt the wool growers have ono argument,
The force Of which we will not overlook.
They c3afm that the manufacturer of cloth
has q very high tariff for his protection, and
TINT It Is unfair to give him so much and them
SO little-that II Is unfair to make wool 60
cheap and cloth 50 dear. There Ia much force
In this argument, and If it Is proposed 10 d.
vide this Sum moro equally between the two
interests, VIC have no objection. But If 1t il
proposed to increase the price Of peoples |
coats and blankets above the present cxorb1- |
tnnt figures, we object most seriously. We |
believe il Is not claimed that any amount or |