Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1884-05-23
THE wooLTARIFF CONVENTION

RetHef III CHlCdgO on lucHddJ l"'
delegates, instead Of 2, 900 as had been
promised. OF those present 50 came
from Ohio and Pennsylvania, while
only five other states had any proper,
ly accredited delegates. Wisconsin
had eight, Of whom the only one OF
any note is Mr.. j. W. Hinton, of Mil
waukee, who never owned u sheep.
AS the sole purpose Of this convention
was TO demand tAe restoration of the
1867 tariff on wool, it must be con
Qluded ii at the real wool growers of
the country do not care TO have other
people taxed for their benefit-in
other words they do not set them
selves up as public paupers.
And here is a good time and place
to examine, as briefly as the case will
admit Of, the reduction of the wool
tariff of 1888, and what its effects were
upon the wool growers. According
to Mr. Delanos speech That tariff re
duction has we'll nigh ruined a great
industry. Let US see. Mr. Dclano
stated that the wool product of the
United States for 1883 was 330, 000, 600
pounds. The most reliable statistics
on the subject places the amount at
800, 0O0 600 pounds, but assuming that
Mr. Delano is correct, his figures will
b. accepted as the basis. 1t also ap-
pears from statistics, undoubtedly
nearly correct, that all the states east
OF the Mississippi river and Minnesota,
Iowa and Missouri, west Of the Missis
sIppi river, produced III, 800, 600
pounds, while Texas, California, Ore
gOn and other western states and ter
rlUorics produced l52, 800, 900 pounds.
Mr.. Delano also states that
there are 100000 flock owners,
and Mr.. Converse, in Congress, as
well as others, state that ! 900, O00 HOck
owners reside with their ilocks in tie
territory which produced the H.
SOC, 600 pounds, consequently the 1872,
500, 600 pounds produced by Texas,
California, Oregon, Kansas. Colorado
and the territories must have been
produced by 10000 flock owners. No
doubt these figures approximate to the
truth, but other statistiCIans give the
latter at 1OO. OO0 flock owners. Then
assuming that protection protects with
What degree Of justice or fairness ctu
the government levy Il tariff tax upon
the millions Of working people of the
country To benefit these western wool
producers who number their sheep by
the tens of thousands and feed them
very largely upon the public domain,
Clearly the injustice is SO palpable
that the case only needs to be stated
10 be seen.
Then turn to the 1000, 600 flock
owners who produce the III, 5O0, coo
pounds of wool and examine their
ease. Mr.. Converse and other advo-
Gates of protection claim that the re
luctIon of the wool tariff in 1888 ost
LLe wool growers cents pound on
all tLis crop. The truth Of this claim
will be examined later and for the
present assume that it is SO. Three
cents pound on M, 500, OOO pounds
Of wool is 1928 OOO or s. 32i for
each one of the | .Oe0, 600 flock own
nrs. Understand that it is not here
that these figures are accu-
rate, they are only approximations
made from the best available statIs-
tics AS to the far west wool growers
their claim for protection is SO pre-
postcrouS as we'll as greedy that it
will not bear patient argument. AS
to the others, If the wool crop should
be doubled and the flock owners re
duccd one half the average protection
would then, ON the figures of these
only be $2l 30. But it is
clear that this is too much and ii is
but fair to conclude that there are in
the states cast of the Mississippi and
the three states west of the Mississippi
named above, about 1000 600 flock
owners. and assuming still that the
reduction of the wool tariff in 1888
cost them three cents pound, they
have lost by the tariff reduction of
1883. from So to $40 each, and no less
than 5000 600 other people III this
country nearly all poor working
men and women gained somewhere
from 81 to 81 each. Nor will 1t do to
say that some Of these flock owners
east of the Mississippi would be beue
fitted II great deal more, because i'll
that case such men become exactly
like the millionaire flock owners of
the west clearly not GntItlSd 10 pro
lection ut the expense of the poor all
around them, and the government
that gives it is the meauest kind of a
thief. Nor can it be claimed that
protection on wool benefits American
labor for nine-tenths of this wool is
produced by men in localities where
the greatest part of the labor connect
ed with it, is IN shearing the hocks.
In all the above it has been assumed
that the tariff reduction of 1888 did
reduce the price of wool 5 cents as is
argued by the protectionists. Under
that assumed condition of things 1t is
very clear that % the l, ,02O, 600 flock
owners not one IN ten has suffered to
the extent of s. and those who have
suffered are of all men in this country
about the least entitled to protection
at the expense of the millions of work
ing people who have to buy blankets
and woolen clothing. The man with
100 acres of land and 100 sheep has
not suffered more than the price
of one sheep by the tariff act
of 1888 and tke man with 20, 900 sheep
grazing upon the public domain IF the
great west is still getting protection
OF 10 cents pound on his wool, all
of which comes out of the five or six