Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1885-09-24

the 0tDeT great IneTluO oIdIoo AOhAoinOu
principally engaged in agricultural in
terests.
We are now ready to approach the
subject of tariff legislation. Previous
to 1867 there had been tor a long time
practically free trade in wool. In that
year DIR. Henry S. Randall, who, after
Col. Humphreys and Chancellor Liv
ingston, was the most eminent patron
and advocate of sheep husbandry the
United States ever produced, succeeded
in harmonizing the hitherto jarring in
terests of the wool growers and manur
faeturers upon the now celebrated tarln
act of 1867.
1t is not necessary to go in detail into
its provisions. Suffice it to say that from
1S4O to 1860 Ga free trade period) the
price of wool classed as medium Ohio
averaged 391z cents per pound; from
1860 to 1880 "a protection period) it av-
eraged Az cents a pound. In the free
trade period the ratio of increase in
wool production was 221z per cent. be
low the late of increase in population; /;
in the protection period it was 226 per
cent above the rate of increase in the
population.
These solid and dull statistics form q
very substantial background to the
piQuant saying of Vermont man, quo'
ted by Secretary Albert Chapman: Free
trade means, buy everything you want
and raise nothing to sell to pay for it
with"
Now, under this tariff of 1867, what
dividends were the wool manufacturers
making, and what were the farmers ma
king? According to an article in the
New York Times Q quote from memOt
ry) the ordinary annual dividend of the
great Pacific Woolen Mills, of Lawrence,
Mass, was for years 25 per cent.
spent an hour or more figuring out
the comparative profits of wool manu-
facturers and farmers, as shown by the
Compendium of the Z. S. Census for
$780, Not TO give the burdensome de-
tails here, will summarize all in the
general statement that for the decade
1S6O,70, the manufacturers made an av
erage of 1912 per cent. on their invest
ment; for the decade 1S70-S0. 36.O7 per
cent. During those two periods the
farmers of the United States were MAJ
king just per cent!
Now, manufacturers are generally
men of brains, and all well-informed
farmers expect them to make money
faster than themselves, and do not COM
plain thereat. But in view of these fig
ures, they respectfully ask if it was me-
cessary, in the interest of the manufac>
turers, that the tariff on woolen goods
should be legislated up, while the tariff
on raw wool waslegislated down?
We come now to 1888. The free trade
Senators and manufacturing Congress
men of New England began to want
free wool. The illustrious DR.. Randall
was dead; the voice of the champion of
thd wool growers was hushed.
Resting in the security of the just and
fair tariff of 1867, the woel growers had
not kept up their organizations. A Ma
tional Wool Growers Association was
maintained, indeed but it was a mere
shell, a name without the substance. A
dozen men, sometimes hardly more than
a half dozen, met in solemn conclaVe
once year, parceled out the Offices
among themselves, paid their hotel bills
and went home.
When Congress created the Tariff
Commission and sent them out to ascer-
tain the facts and the sentiments of the
wool growers, they found only this skel-
eton organization. which represented
nothing. 1t had absolutely no constitu-
ency. Or, rather, just at this critical
time, the Vermont men captured its
President; and so it came to pass that
the Tariff Commission, instead of having
to deal (as they ought to have done) with
representatives of a great and powerful
organization, standing for the wool
growing interest of the whole country
an interest with S5OO,OOO,OOO invested in
real estate, according to Hon. Columbus
DelanO-they sought and obtained the
opinion of one man, and that one man
committed to the little, narrow interest
of the standard tlocks of Vermont, and
in league with the manufactures.
Never was more palpable BETRAYAL
On this one mans Misrepresentation,
that the wool growers of the United
States consented to a reduction, the
Republican Congress reduced the taraff
Only one thing can be said in mitiga-
tion. Perhaps the farmers deserved this
punishment for their lack of organization
and of associated, vigorous protest in
Washington. But they have now been
punished enough. 1t was not the Repub-
lican Congress that reduced the tariff in
fact. 1t was this one man who falsely
stood for the wool growers of the United
States.
How do we know this? In their report
the Tariff Commission said, referring to
the tariff of 1867. "The law fixing the
duty was passed with the entire appro-
baton of the body of producers, and the
wisdom which guided its promotion has
found substantial recognition in the
grading of the sheep and the advance
ment of sheep husbandry. During the
last fifteen years The price of wool has
been reduced to the consumer" (manu-
facturer).
This is what the Tariff Commission
said. and yet the Tariff Commission pro-
posed, and Congress enacted, a reduction
of duty of meroni wool equal in direct
valuation to three cents a nonpd. in in