The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1888-04-25
The Tariff On Wool.

The Journal printed the other day an
interview with Mr.. ISAAC THALMAY, a
dealer in wool, from which we extract the
following:
Would the removal of the tariff affect the
wool industry?
/ think it would Let me cite you one cir
cumstance that makes me think so. Last year
it was thought and was published all over the
world that the wool crop in the United States
was comparatively failure, that not more than
half a crop would be realized. This was un-
true. But mark its effects. Wool-growers OF
Europe, learning of the deficiency in this coun-
try, as it was represented, promptly raised the
price of their wool. They meant TO take ad-
vantage of our necessity, as they would do
every time under free trade; but when they
found out that the report was false, and they
could not get a higher price than usual, they
proceeded AT once to reduce again. Now that
shows what kind of condition we will always
be in when we are dependent ON a foreign
country for our supplies of an article The
abolition of the tariff would, in my Judgment,
destroy to a large extent the wool industry OF
this country. The effect would be to put the
business in the hands of Europe, when the
wool men could raise the price, as this little
furry of last year indicated, and in the end we
would pay more than we do now. Or course
when we reached that condition farmers
would begin raising again and bring the price
down. But il would then be put down so low
in Europe that it would drive us out again and
the same conditions would recUr. You see that
the abolition of the tariff has this bad effect it
leaves our market In the control OF the Tor
eigner-something that we don't want in any
line of business under any circumstances.
Mr.. THALMAN may be honest in these
statements, but we submit that there is
neither logic nor common sense in them.
Because a reported failure of our wool crop
resulted in a temporary advance in the
price of foreign woods, it does not follow
that ike result would attend q repeal Of
the duty on wool. This would not happen
unless the abolition of the duty were to
destroy or cripple our wool-growing in
terests. Solne Of the wool-growers claim
that this would be its effect, but they can
not prove it by first assuming it to be true,
and then moking deductions from the as
sumption, rs Mr. THALAAN does. That is
begging the question.
/ In the came interview Mr.. TnALSfAN
saws what is admitted to be true:
/ The tendency is 10 crowd the sheep industry
/ further west as new states are settled il takes
/ n great deal of pasture for sheep, and land is
/ becoming too valuable in eastern states 10 de-
vote 20 IT, 10 can be used IN other lCdys 20 MAKE
/ mere money. So, eventually, it must be con.
/ fined 20 land that not be profitably used for
I anything else. Colorado and Montana viii be
/ great wool-growing states in the future
/ < can not say there is much of decline in In.
diana. Still there is certainly no growth in it
| In my judgment aoiH groV less from nO'c on
Here we have the whole philosophy OF
This wool question IN nutshell. Wool.
growing is not and cannot be made profit
able in Indiana or Ohio or Pennsylvana
or New York, because land is too valua
BILE in these states to be used fol
pasture. The industry will continue
to decline, tariff or no tariff. 1t is the
height Of folly to try to bolster it up by
protective duty. An economic law which
is paramount to statutes will force it to tht