The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1884-08-21
The Ohio Wool Growers and the
Tariff

L
Sec. W. I. Chamberlain, in Rural New Yorker.
The facts in regard to the reduction Of
the tariff on wool are so freshly in mind
and the farmers are still so sore over the
matter, that | need only allude to them
| enough to show what action is likely tore-
suit in wool localities this Fall.
Whether there were traitors in the camp
of the wool men-high officials, too, who
assented to the reduction in conference
with the Tariff Commissioners neither
here nor there at present. How much
money was used by the manufacturers in
the commission and in Congress / do not
even care to ask; they certainly have got
back all they spent | recall Simply the
facts that iii the winter of 1928 Congress
materially reduced the tariff on wool, and
did not materially reduce that on wooden
goods, nay, even increased it on some
grades. Farmers in Ohio at once saw that
such q reduction meant a reduction of at
least live cents per pound on their next
4 clip. and OF still more on subsequent ones.
hence, they everywhere organized. before
/ the law was passed, to prevent its passage,
and nearly succeeded.
| Wen, the law passed. Soon after. I re-
member, a Wool Buyers Association held
| a special meeting in the rooms of the Ohio
State Board of Agriculture, at Columbus.
There were ''tonguey'' men present who
kindly assured the wool growers that they
| were scared before they were hurt: that
there would result no reduction: in price,
| unless they. the wool growers, caused one
by the Internal din and clatter they We're
making just as if umbrellas were the
cause of rain, or lightning of light
ming
| Well, two wool seasons have passed
| mr.
occurred to me that it might be well to get
some reliable figures on present prices, so
The following questions were put on our
| monthly crop blanks and sent out to the
l,WO township correspondents of our
| Board, viz.
Wool average price offered per pound cts; ~
| +" in 1851. -?
| Nearly 1000 returns have been received,
and tabulated and averaged, and it appears
that the average price now is q cents
agalnse 36 to 81 in 1881, before the tariff
reduction. This is loss of nine to ten
cents, or over 25 per cent But there has
been no corresponding reduction in the
price OF wooden clothing indeed, there has
been no appreciable reduction at all, that
can discover. For the tariff on imported
cloths is not reduced materially indeed. in
! some classes, as | have said before. it is
even raised and SO the American manu-
facturers have 1T all in their own hands. so
that whatever they save in raw material is
clear gain and how much is that for Ohio
alone? The annual clip of Ohio in 1882
was 70, 629, 424 pounds at nine cents per
pound the loss would be 50. 126, 6S4 IS {; and
the loss on value Of sheep and lambs would
swell the total at least to "a 000,O This
represents the5 forced donation the Ohio
! farmers this year make to the Eastern
manufacturers. They have ''passed the
| hat to some purpose in Ohio, and got
| enough already to pay back all they spent
III working the reduction through the
| Commission and through Congress.
No one sshall know from this article
| whether l favor tariff or free-trade. / only
say.that SO long as our Government. pro-
tects almost the entire range of manufac-
tured articles, While wool is almost the
only agricultural product that has any real
protection, common decency forbidS a re-
moyal OF the tariff from this. For we ex-
port instead of importing most of the
other agricultural products on which there
| is duty, and hence farmers receive no
| benefit from the tariff.
| This matter of tariff on wool is quite d
| serious matter in Ohio, for the southeast
| ern hilly portion of the State is better
adapted to fine wool growing than to al
most anything else, while in most counties
sheep are supplementary to agriculture;
| but wool cannot be grown at a profit for
less than about 40 cents per pound, and it
has averaged fully that (WaShed) since the
passage of the tariff of 1867, and SO here
| in Ohio. West Virginia and other wool
| growing regions, this matter enters into
politics largely. Our Board of Agricul-
| ture is non-political, and this article shall
notsshow my own politics. But this is
true. The tariff reduction occurred when
| Congress had a Republican majority and
so it was entirely natural that the measure
was charged upon the Republicans. The
Fall campaign Of 1883 in Ohio was fought
largely on the wool question. though the
free Whiskey question was up, too. On
wool the Democrats s'took in the situa-
tion'' at glance. They knew the wool
growers were angry at the reduction, and
so the Democratic State platform in 1883
declared that the wool tariff reduction was
ubiquitous legislation, and Fought to be
corrected, and the platform of 1884 speaks
| of the just demands of the wool growers.
In 1888 the Democratic Committee issued
q special 'swool circular" It said 1.-THE
election of Hoadley ON the other hand,
means the triumph of the Democrats and
the success OF their objects, of which the
unconstitutional restoration of the duty on
aUool entire, is one of the most important ~
l
as follows: Trust the Democratic party
in this matter it has promised to Isle and
1t ,vU giUe you relief" Ohio was carried
largely on this and similar promises in
1888 for on the strength of them great
numbers of Republican wool-groWers voted
the Democratic ticket, hoping for the
restoration of the wool tariff of 1867. Did
they get it +? Not at all. And as if to add
insult to injury, our Democratic Attorney
General, Lawrence, who was elected on
the strength of these wool promises, now
says in regard to present Democratic pros
| poets II do not think the refusal of Con-
gress to restore the wool tariff will affect
the Democratic party in Ohio. No man of
gress to increase the tariff ~ Well, then,
why did you promise it, except to pull
wool over the eyes of Republican wool
men?
In view Of this what are the hock-mas-
tiers of Ohio likely to do this Fall? What
are the chances under each party +? Look
at past facts. The Republicans established
the tariff in 1867, and in every vote from
then till now in Congress, much larger
proportion of the Republicans than of the
| Democrats have voted in the interests of
the wool-growers. In the session of 1882
3. the former voted almost solid against
| lCu'tCtlCll, etHtl IIlo ltGI0I utmost SOilQ IOr
it and in the session Of 1884 the Repub-
licans voted almost solid for restoration.
and the Democrats largely against it.
The Republican National Convention has
surrendered Internationally to the wool
growers. and the Ohio wool-men will be
likely to remember that our Democratic
Acknowledgement says that mo man of
sense ever expected Democratic Con-
gress to increase the TARIFF Having
tried that party last year, and having been
duped, they are not in humor to try it
again. And it seems probable that the
; Republicans at the first chance will restore
the tariff. The wool-men are too numer-
Gus, too well organized. and have too hearty
a backing of sympathy from the entire
body OF farmers to make it safe to disre-
gard or trifle with their just demands. And
Just IN the same way, the farmers may and
should combine to make their influence
felt on all legislation affecting their in
terests. The only trouble was that they
dld not organize soon enough, work hard
enough, and put in money enough to pre-
vent the reduction. In taking political
action, every manufacturing, commercial
and transportation business in the coun
} Try looks first to its own interests; they al
support that party which is likely to pro
m q inv e.. 1 r