Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1886-04-01
THE WOOL TARIFF.

In answer to David Browns last article
printed in the CHRONICLE of the 25th ult., !
must say, after reading it over carefully, that
cannot find any arguments in ii, except one or
two points. Most of it seems to be of per-
sonal abuse of those who replied to his first
article On Free Trade" as | would call it. l.
as member of the Belmont Co. Wool-grower's
Association, would saw, any encrOachment
upon equalization of the tariff rights and pri-
vileges of America should be met with deter
mined opposition by any indutry Disseminated
against. While the average rate of duty on
wool-manufacturers is 67.l6 per cent. and on
wool only 33.40 per cent, and while the profit
on capital invested in the manufacture of wool
is 1865 per cent and the profit on capital in
vested in wool-growiug is only 3.O3 per cent,
it is evident that the manufacturers have the
best of it, and although Mr.. Brown SAYS nine
out of every ten break up to one wool-grower,
| say that the wool-growers have been unjustly
disseminated against in the division of the pro-
lection afforded these two industries.
Wool-growers should demand mole just
and equal division of the protection afforded
them and manufacturers, and also that the rate
of protection be increased materially. Wool
grower. have just as much right to make 1888
per cent. on their capital as wool -manufactur-
ers, and they should demand an adjustment OF
rates with reference to more nearly equalizing
the rates of protection between these two in
dustries. Especially should this be the ease
where they represent $52S, 1873, 900 of capital,
and the manufacturers only Sl59, ,O9l, ,o69, and
they having the advantage in numbers in the
proportion of ii to | nearly. With the advant-
age of numbers and cspital both largely in its
favor, it is most strange that weoi-growing is
so persstently ignored in our legislative halls
and that the manufacturers can obtain the ear
of the Lawmakers whenever desirable. Wool
growers in different sections of the country are
awakening somewhat TO the. Importance of
more thorough organization and more active
campaigns in the future, and if this move
ment could be made to extend through all WOOL
growing districts, and the iock-masters held
to see the injustice of the discrimination against
them, surely they would, 10y the power of their
numbers aud wealth, rise and change the atti-
tude of congress on this question at the next
election-even, though, Mr. Brown thinks any
I agitation by the wool-grower's associations will
have tendency to reduce the 1883 rate. Ifit
does, it will be very different from the agitation
of the National woOl-grouer's association
whose efforts in connection with those of the
National association of wool-manufacturers
that secured the enactment of the tariff Of
growers as the acme of perfection.
Mr.. Brown admits that under the tariff Of
1867, the wool-growers fourished, and does not
deny but what the manufacturers did well. Ii
looks to ME as if the Lawmakers had the in
terests of manufacturers under their care all the
time Since the withdrawal of protection
flock masters have lost hope, and our be.i
sheep are rapidly bought up at ruinous figures
for export, to improve the focks of Australia
to be brought in competition with our ovr
wools.
Mr. Brown classes wool as raw material with
cotton, fax and iron ores, as all manufactured
materials are classed the world over-as theJ
are unfinished products.
l, as member OF the Belmont Co. Wool
grower's Association, deny that wool is raw
material, notwithstanding Mr.. Brown and his
Lfar-fetched friend from Michigan. 1t is very
strange that Michigan wool-growers should
change so materially since 1884. When l met
them at Chicago as one of our representatives
at the National wool-grower's convention
!, they voted with the balance of the representa-
tives of all the wool-growing districts of the
United States for the restoration of the 1881
rate, or its equivalalt. The very idea of d
farmer raising wool and calling it raw material
when it takes nearly six months of the year il
guarding against pestilence and diseases. Doe.
Mr.. Brown propose to say that it takes no ar
nor labor to prepare wool for the market7 Raw
material is something found in nature befor,
human labor has been applied.
, The American people who are being impor
tuned to abandon the tariff policy, which ha.
so wonderfully developed our industries, can
not have their attention too frequently or poirft
!, edly called to the Ins0lent and unfriendly IN
reference of Great Britain in our tariff legisla
ton. Does it tend to favor the production
here rather than abroad, of the articles tina
we need? Does it tend to develop the ratura
resources of our own country, and to call int
full play all the energies of the American peo
pie? If not, its object and tendency is erad
, cation, not reform; retrogression, not progress
r From study of what the policy of protection
has done for our country, we may estimate pre-
| cisely what results will follow if ever tina
policy is abandoned. We have only to read tn,
history Of the country material progress sinc'
the enactment of the protective tariff, and t.
compare our condition since that period witt
our condition before. The security of any na
ton rests upon its ability to be supporting
: and no nation capable of maintaining within it
: borders variety of industries can afford t.
buy in foreign markets that which its citizens
can produce at home; and another statistica
truth and argument in favor of protection is
that protective duty has tendency to reduce
the price of foreign goods at the port of export
S rather than to increase it in our markets-thu
tends to add to our revenue part of the profit
of the foreign producer, as the following illus
tration will show. take the Cape or Soutl
, African wool market: In 1859, 1860 and 1861
when that wool was free of duty, the cost a
port of export was nineteen and four-tentl
cents In 1868, when their was duty O
> |, three cents per pound and five per cent adval
orem, the price at port of export WAS si1teeI
cents per pound. In 1864 when our duty wal
six cents per pound, the price was six cent.
per pound; the price at port of export was les
Is cents per pound, and in 1S67-S, when ou
duty was 10 cents per pound and 10 per cent
sdvalorem, the price at port of export was les