Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1888-05-04

does not represent the views of single
wool grower in Texas; while the leading
journal of our greatest wool-manufactur-
ing State represents an element that does
not hesitate to put forth the most
abominable lies to carry its ends.
But to return again to the stockings.
The journal points out Mr.. Mills error,
but then goes on to say: cit is easy to
be seen, therefore. that if the American
manufacturer had only been able to buy
wool wherever it was cheapest in the
markets of the world, he would have
been able to furnish these goods for the
world, instead of merely exporting ma
chinery."
Here is another free trade promise: let
per doz. legs, Sc. common day hands
men, 81 to Soc. women, 20 to Csc; and
skilled knitters per day, 40 to soc.
In Philadelphia; Knitters, per doz.
legs, 40c.; common day hands-men,
Sl.50: women, 75c. to 81 .00 skilled knit
delphia laborer gets from three to six
times as much per day as the German.
If the Philadelphia knitting mill had its
wool given to it for nothing, it could not
compete with the foreign mill and pay
this difference in wages.
The manufacturers know and say that
1t is not free wool that they must have,
but cheap labor. Why do not the free
| ,ln,e +1.a Il. l. nd
tell the Philadelphia knitter that free
trade means S1.00 for work which now
paws him $500.
Why do the free trade journals harp
on free raw material when they know it
is wages that prevents our manufacture
ers from producing low cost goods?
The great power that the free trade
that is, our abstract theoretcal-element
has attained in this country, arises from
arguments founded upon false statistics
and the false logic illustrated by this
speech of Mr. Mills of Texas and the
statements of this free-trade Providence
Journal. The industrial portion of the
country has an educational work to do
a work which it is now doing. The
United States should grow practically all
the wool it uses, and manufacture all the
woolens it needs. 1t possesses every re-
source necessary to do this. 1t has been
shown, and will be again and again, to
all that study the matter, that prOtec-
ton which will secure the production of
our woods at home gives to US in the end
cheaper wool than we could possibly oh
tain if free trade had removed the second
greatest wool-producing country of the
globe from competition in the world 5
markets.
Let our national policy secure to us the
business of growing and manufacturing
all our own wool, and we will compete
among ourselves until that price is given
the consumer which will be the lowest
possible consistent with we'll paid labor.
And now let us make an earnest appeal
to those who are to help shape the future
policy of this government by their right
exercised at the polls.
From whom will you take the facts
and figures concerning the greatest in
dustry that has grown up under the
American policy of protection:
Ill you De instructed III tnc practlca
matter of making and marketing cloth
by lawyer who acknowledges that he
was never in wooden mill in his life OF
by those who have made this business q
life study and work?
Will you go to a newspaper editor
cooped up between four walls, and whose
life study has been to write up thing tC
make it look plausible, regardless of the
case, and who may not have seen sheer
in his life-would you go to such a mar
to get information concerning sheep nus
, bandry? Or would you take the wore
of the practical farmer, who probably
knows what he wants and what is goot
for him, fully as well as the college pro
fessor or the newspaper editor?
l The free traders are not practical men
and their views on practical questions
should have correspondingly but little
weight. Theoretically and abstractly
they are right, just as the anarchist i:
right.
Those engaged in the industries of the
country should be heard and their Opin
ions respected. 1t rests with the country
at large to choose whose advice it vii