New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-12-10

| !, 0rhL quoting our answer To Mr. Samuci
Walters questions, takes the proper mode OF
enlarging its knowledge Of Political Economy
viz:
Ict us ask TnE TRIBUNE IL Inc price OF dometic WOOL
is not cuharced 10 the extent OF the 100 per cent that Is
levied on foreign. what the duty enacted iot OF
| why Is 1t allowed TO standi"
! Apscer.-1be duty was enacted. and 3 al
! lowed to stand, in order that more and more
| wool growing by American farmers should be
melted by the assurance of an enlarged and
expanding market for their product. The price
of that product (as we have often remarked)
must necessarily he regulated by The acreage
cost Of its production. Make the duty ten
thousand dollars per pound, and the pnce OF
Wool might range IA little higher or little
lower than it now does; but it would depend,
ms it does now, on the cost of producing the
stanle in this country. Some would undertake
0ike Gen. BrinkerhofO to grow Wool on
| lands too valuable for or otherwise un-
suited to that industry, and would come to
a bad end as he did but the average cost OF
producing the quantity required would govern
the average price paid for it, just as at pres
ent. So of Pig Iron, Coal, Lumber, and every
thing else. The notion that the price OF an
article largely produced among us is enhanced
to the extent of whatever duty may be levied
on the importation of Il foreign rival, never
had any foundation in fact nor received any
countenance from our school of Political Ec0no-
mists-or any school that respects facts.
| The World maunders on after this melan-
| cbOly fashion:
OF Ills done for the cake ~ and Is successful
domestic wool must appreciate to the price OF the foreign
plus duty provided OF course that the Two are o
the same quality and compete with zach other But as
M Walters letter shows, domestic wool does not COM
IN with foreign for does not appreciate 100 per cent
and the tariff must therefore be intended to Keep out
tregn wool altogether for the benefit of few wooden
| panufa cturers who are thereby protector 10 the
extent Of cents per pound and 30 per cent al Vaore
IN their fabrics not at all for the benefit OF the Aner
an wool-grower who does not get cent by H. notwh
standing the foreign WOOL pulicu over ms eyes W 1Ao
| him believe he does"
| Comment by The Tribune - How American
WOODEN manufacturers are protected by duty
| Of 100 per cent on Wool, it needs sharp eyes
| 10 perceive; but we do not admit that our
duties on Wool average 12O per cent" nor
any thing like il. Yet we have already shown
! that, while Gen. Brinkerhoff is compelled to
sacrifice his sheep because Wool is 40 cheap,
MIR. Edward HaIils tan cHllcnJ hcNchuc
Reformer) cannot make WOolens to his own
satisfaction because Wool il so dear lie
wants free Wool, 40 that he may stock his
mills at lower rates, and is willing to pur-
chase that advantage by lower duties on
Woolens; insisting that at present he is not
| protected at ALL but rather worse of than
though We had no tariff at all. lie asserts
| that Wool would rise throughout the world
| if we admitted it free: which is probably so
| far true that it would rise on La Plata and
| in Australia, but be apt to fall i'll this coun-
| try. So, you see, doctors differ; but the
| patient is serene.
No doubt, some men In this country have
! grown and are growing Wool at loss, ;s
others have made and are making Woolens;
but we note the rapid increase of focks on
the great Plains, while Wooden factories are
rapidly going up in Minnesota, Kansas, ard
Colorado, and producing cheap substantial
fabrics. such as are needed and worn by our
Western Pioneers. On the whole, we believe
that Wool and WoOlcrs are both doing quite
az well us other departments of orr National
| Industry and we judge il wise to let well