Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1886-05-14
Sheep Jnterest.
TEXAS WOOL GROWERS NOT
INDIFFERENT ABOUT PROTEC-
TON
Corresponding PHILADELPHIA Record

In your editorial of March 26th on
''TeXas Wool Growers and the Tariff
you give us credit for a generosity we do
not possess and which modesty forbids
us to accept. Our Texas Representatives
do not cry for the retention of the duty
on wool because the sheepmen are not
strong enough to influence elections.
Sheep raising in Texas is principally con-
fined to the undeveloped Western portion
and even there the small cattlemen and
farmers are in the majority.
There can be no comparison between
sheep raising in Texas and that in the
Eastern States. Our method is purely
pastoral, while there it is part of an
agricultural system, in which sheep very
often fill in spare corners of farm and
more than pay by their enriching the
soil, while here we have only the wool
to look to. | have been told by farm
er close to Philadelphia that he could
afford to raise sheep if they merely met
expenses because of the manurial pro
duets. which are here entirely wasted
from lack of demand. There, with feed
and shelter. the loss is at minimum
here. where we depend upon a genial
climate and winter grazing, and these
conditions fail Gas they have for two
successive seasons, the greatest care will
not prevent frightful losses.
The past two winters have been ruin
Gus. Few men have as many sheep as
they had two years ago; hundreds have
been completely ruined and forced into
the hands of the sheriff, and of the re-
mainder | am satisfied that two-thirds
would sell out if they could. The bust
ness is so Frustrated. however, that there
are no newcomers, and sheep bought
three years ago for 50 and 81 go begging
now for 81.
In previous years sheepmen made
money, but inquiry among stockmen
here will confirm my statements as to re-
cent years. Granting good mild winters,
and we still labor under many disadvan-
tages.
First. Poorer class of sheep. Even with
imported bucks it takes years to grade
up flock of native sheep.
Second. High cost of living, because of
distance from railroads.&c. my case 10
miles, for which wagon freight is 81 per
100 pounds.
7hird. Cost of shipping wool for the
same reason: and. moreover. even at
railroad points, prices are based on Phil
adelphia or Boston markets, which
knocks off 3 or cents more.
Fourth. Poorer quality of grass, re-
quiring much more land than where
sheep craze on tame grasses.
Firm. Poor market for increase. Our
nearest mutton markets are st. Louis and
Chicago, nearly 1000 miles. Fat NUT
tons. on the range. after a drive to the
railroad and a long trip in the cars are so
fallen away as to command the lowest
prices. Taking out freight (nearly 81
per head) and the majority of sheep net
less than 81 per head, and | know of
some yielding II cents.
.Sicth Unjust classification of Texas
WOODS.
In one of your previous articles you
Fay that the poor man does not care at
(which end the price of his blanket is re-
iuced, whether at the wool growers or
manufacturer but it does make great
leal of difference to the poor sheepman-
who needs IA great many of these blank
PTS to shelter him, in his poorly protect
I'd tent, from the piercing winds and biz
yards from the north-if he finds his pro-
ection gone and still has to buy dear
blanket. None but those who are here
know the intense solicitude, suffering
md privations that a sheepman endures.
am not discussing here the merits of
protection. Whether it is good policy or
bad it is only fair play, if there must be
reduction of duties, that all should take
share. The labor that cultivates a
pound of wool as much deserves and
needs protection as that which carries
t forward through the various stages to
he finished product.
In conclusion. let me ask you to re-
nember, in doing your part of the work
you have assumed, that the Texas ranch
pan, standing now upon the brink OF
|uin, is poor subject to be the first on
whom the axe must fall.
MENARD.
Menardville. Texas, April o. 1856.