Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1884-09-02
For the SPECTATOR,
10 the People of Highland County.
AT HOME Ann,,st 90 100.

AT HOME, August %, 1884.
! In the "new ISSUE of the Highland Re
corder, of the 10th inst there appeared a,
editorial article ON the s'effect of tariff OF
wool, !" addressed especially to you and 9th
ers OF the surrounding counties, in whicl
tnere are misstatements of fact and falla
cles OF argument and conclusion that de
sire to call your attention to.
The Editor says: "In fact it is the D7ia
c1pol article many of them have to sell
Upon the proceeds of the sale of wool the,
rely for most of the money they get?" Now
nave only to ask you, people of Highland
-ior to you only do l address myself at
this time-is this correct? And / know
that your answer will be:
mot by any means. We get the most
OF our money from our cattle. Indeed,
wool-growing in this county cannot be
called an industry of the county. The only
vocation we have that is entitled tu the
name of industry, and in the pursuit ot
which we expect to grow rich or poor as
the case may be, is cattle raising and
grazing. Comparatively, we keep but few
sheep, aad get but little money, some OF
us none, from our wool, as what we have
to spare is mostly traded to our merchants
for goods that we need in our families. As
a matter of fact, wool is mere adjunct to
other small means, such as butter, eggs,
&c., we have for an economical mainte.
nance of the household, and would NOT
matter much to us whether it was protected
or not"
Such, am sure, will be the response oil
the people of Highland to the question, for
such are the facts. So the Editor will per-
ceive that he made great mistake in re-
gard to the wool business of this county,
but you will, doubtless, excuse him, as
does the writer, for he had but recently
come to the county, and had not had time
to get correct information on the subject.
Then, after showing you to your salts
faction, as doubtless he supposed. the yasf
importance of your wool trade, as if you
did not know as much about it as he did.
he says: "Why was the price of wool so
much better in the spring of 1883 than il
was last spring." and answers the question
hlmself-won't let you do it, because yoas
don't know-by telling you that ''for some
years previous to the spring of 1888, there
was high tariff on wool, X = and go
it happened the price of wool was high in
the spring of 1882 and little further on
says, the reason why ''wool is low this
year" is ''because Congress last year took
the tariff off of wool?" Now, what are the
facts in relation to the points raised here?
1t is true wool was little lower last spring
than the spring before-about 5 cents in
the pound-but was that owing to the rea-
son stated? Not bit of it? The same
tariff on wool that existed in the spring of
1888 existed last spring, and lives unpruned
to this day. Neither did the Congress of
1898, nor that of 1884,, the last reduce
the previously existing duty on wool or
anything else-much less did ''the Con-
orr NJ 10 wi, foix e
wooP' as that declaration would lead you
to believe, if you knew no better There
has been made no change of any kind in
the tariff for several years past. Thus,
you see, farmers and wool-growers of
Highland, that the reduction complained of
in the price of wool was not owing to any
change in the tariff, but, as has always
been, is, and always will be the case, tariff
or no tariff, it was due solely to the invari-
able and universal law of supply and de-
mand, and not to a low or no duty on that
article. Beware then of this Tempter who
comes to you in the guise of friend to your
best interest. We are on the eve of the
most important election that we have to
make, and he would beguile you, not with
the fruit of the tree of knoaoledge, but with
poor, pitiful tariff apple, into the support
of the Great High Protector, James G.
Blaine, whose election to the Presidency of
these United States would be, believe,
the greatest political disaster that could
befall this great nation.
Again-and here he gets himself into an
ugly muddle, from which can see no es-
cape for him with untattered clothes and q
whole skin-he puts it into the mouth of
one of you to say: 'If wool is more plentiful
and England sends so many wooden goods
over here, clothes ought to be cheaper, but
we pay as much now as we did last year.
"All true, we admit" says the Editor
Well, then, if that is a fact, and we will
take it as such, who, would ask, gets the
benefit Of the fall in the price of wool last
spring? Not you certainly, but just as cer-
tainly do the great manufacturing monopo-
lists of the country get it. What you lose
by the fall in the price of wool goes into
the manufacturers pocket as q clear gain,
for, as the Editor says, clothes are no
cheaper now than last year. Your loss,
then, is their gain. Those proud and bloat-
ed monopolists are protected by tariff wall
SO high that competition from abroad can
not scale it, and, therefore, low prices of
the raw material here cannot, and does
not, compel them to cheaper their goods,
but you must continue to buy such cloth
ing as you need, as heretofore, at almost
two prices so long as that wall stands.
Who built that wall, do you ask? the Re-
publican party; and will you help to keep
such monopolistic party in power as that?
Let your votes at the poles next November
answer, "No, never" But fearing that 1
may weary your patience, l will close this
review of the article in question for the
present.
Thus has the Editor of the new Recorder
fired his first tariff gun, which, if it con-
tinues to perform in the future as it has
done this time, may very deservedly take
rank with Sir Hudibras's famous old fire.
lock:
(which, whenever aimed at duck or plover,
Was sure to kick and knock its owner over,"-
and hurt nobody but that adventurous
Knight himself. A. S. 7.