Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1888-01-15
WHAT IS PROJECTIONS
Instructive Argument by
a Wool Manufacturer.
OPERATION OF THE TARIFF.
Facts and Figures Which Prove
the Absurdity of the AdvO-
Gates of High Tariff.

PROVIDENCE, r. l., December 3d.
Rowland Hazard, of the Peace Dale
Wooden Manufacturing Company, is
widely known in the trade, and
wherever wool is grown or manufac-
tured in this country, as a man Of
ideas as we'll as of fine business ca
pacity. Since 1912 he has not been q
protectionist in the sense in which
the word is generally used here. He
has always maintained that the pres
ent tariff protected neither the wool
manufacturers nor the wool grower;
that it fostered neither indus
try; that it did not prevent
competition by foreign woods and
foreign goods, and that it
imposed heavy tax upon productive
industry. After a trial OF twenty
Years, the tariff has proved a failure,
in his opinion. That the American
workingman may be profitably en-
ployed, the American wool grower
furnished with a good market, and
the American wool manufacturer
lifted out of the slough Of despond,
the tariff, he claims, should be
lowered. He believes, and has al
ways believed, that the prosperity Of
the wool manufacturer means the
prosperity of the wool grower.
For years Mr.. Hazard stood almost
alone among wooden manufacturers in
his attitude toward the tariff. His
opinions found few believers. Nothing
daunted, he claimed That his oppon-
ents would finally admit that
he was right. Mr.. Hazard has
lived to see his prophecy fulfilled.
In 1884 he made an address to
the Washington county (Rhode
Island) Agricultural Society, of which
he was President, that attracted I'M
looked for attention. A portion of
the address was on topics OF interest
to the farmers alone, but the
greater part of it was care
fully condensed history of the wool
growing industry of the country. The
address appeared in some of the
Rhode Island newspapers, but the de-
mand for it was so strong that the
newspaper edition was soon ex-
hausted. Mr.. Heard was induced TO
have it printed in pamphlet form, and
in this shape it was distributed all
over the country to those who re-
quested copies. The pamphlets were
exhausted without satisfying the de-
mand, and digest OF the address has
just been prepared for further distri-
button. Wool Growing and the
Tariff" is its title, and at this particu-
lar time it is worthy of space in the
Times. Its contents are as follows:
There is a widespread belief that
the question, "Does a protective
tariff benefit the wool-growers ?"
must be answered in the affirmative.
So general is the belief that there
is strong prejudice against
any examination of the sub
ject. The ordinary answer to the
question is that the tariff on wool is
for "the protection of the American
wool grower against the ruinous COM
petition of free foreign wool. Of
course it is benefit. Take off the
tariff and we could not grow wool in
the United States"
Now, it is to be observed that this
answer is exceedingly general in its
character. 1t gives no statistics to
show how the tariff has actually pro-
duced the good effect it claims. 1t
relies, apparently, on the single word
protection" and on the single and
child-liks faith Of the wool-growers
that they are protected because the
tariff under which they are struggling
is called protective tariff.
Is this answer satisfactory? Would
it not be more satisfactory, after our
long experience with a high "pro-
tective" tariff, to have pointed out
the small beginnings OF sheep hus-
bandry, the growth of the focks
under the fostering care Of the tariff,
the increasing prosperity of the wool
growers, and the high prices they
obtained for their woods?
But, strange to say, no tariff orator
has ever given point to his argument
by the recital of such statistics. The
simple fact is that they cannot be
cited with truth; they do not exist.
If such benefits have not followed
the enactment Of high tariffs, what re-
suits have followed? In all soberness
and candor let us examine this sub
ject. Let us not be beguiled by art.
full politicians, who simply regard the
matter as bait to catch votes.
But the time is coming, if it has not
already come, when the intelligent
woolgrowers OF this great country can
no longer be led by such a senseless
cry. They will examine this question
in the light of experience and of rea-
son, and they will decide the case ac-
,cording to its merits. Such an exam
ination and such decision the friends
of tariff reform most earnestly desire
The first striking fact to notice about
the high tariff on wool is that the re
suits aimed at by it's projectors have
failed to be realized. The tariff of 1867
was passed to encourage wool growing
and to foster wool manufacturing. Toe
terms were settled at q convention o.
wool-growers and wool-manufacturers
It was expected to raise the price O
wool and the price OF goods, and il
was particularly expected to increase
the growth of wool.
None of these results followed the
enactment of this tariff. On the con.
trary, directly after the passage of the
tariff of 1867 there was large falling
off in the wool product, especially il
the border States east of the Missis
sippi river, which up to that time haC
been the great wool producing States
The following table shows in the
last column the total wool clip of the
United States from 1865 to 1877 in
elusive. The second column shows
the clip of the older States, sepa
rated from that Of California, Texas
the Southern States and the Terrific
ries. This separation is not abso
lutely complete, as some tub ant
some pulled wool from the new wool
producing sections have been adde'
to the product Of the older States
But whatever error there is makes tn
II II Cknt