Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1888-08-17
Sheep Jnterest.
THE WOOL QUESTION.
Mr.. JOSEPH BATTELL.


people. In a paper which | send with
this / have stated some considerations
which are, as it seems to me, important to
be considered. If they seem so to you,
you may make what use you please of
the paper. Yours truly,
CHAUNCEY SMITH.
FREE WOOL.
A considerable portion of the wool pro-
duced in this country is used by those
who raise it. TO the extent of this use
the tariff on wool can be of no advantage
to wool growers, because the cost of
wool to the man who raises it is not af-
fected by a tariff upon wool brought into
the country. The number Of sheep re-
quired to produce the wool which a farm
er wants for his own use, and the food
and labor which they require will be the |
same. whether there is or is not a tariff
on foreign wool. If without a tariff for
eign wool could be bought by a farmer
cheaper than he could raise it, then he
would be a sufferer, for he must use his
farm and labor to produce for his own
use what he could buy cheaper abroad.
With respect to the wool a farmer sells
there are two other persons whose inter-
ests are affected by the higher prices they
must pay by reason of the tariff. These
persons are the manufactures who buys
the wool and makes it into cloth, and the
consumer who buys the cloth for his own
use. The manufacturer must pay more
for his wool than he would do if he
bought it of a foreign wool grower. and
the man who buys the cloth must pay
more for it than he would have done if
the manufacturer had bought the wool
cheaper. The manufacturer gets back
the money he paid the farmer for the
wool from the man who buys the cloth
to use. He is neither better nor worse
off for the increased price he paid for the
wool. But he may suffer in this way.
He can't buy wool of a foreign wool
grower, make it into cloth and sell it to
foreigners for use, for the manufacturers
of other countries who do not pay a tar
if on wool can make cloth and sell it
NiI'blNl nan IN Ndls IIltlC Ndu Dt IO
labor employed in this country to make
cloth for other countries and no profits
made by the manufacture of cloth for
sale in other countries. Now let us see
how the matter stands between the far
mer in this country under a tariff on wool
and the man who buys the cloth made
from his wool. Does the farmer get all
of the increased price which the man
who uses the cloth pays? 1t is of no adj
vantage to a farmer to raise wool unless
he can get pay for what it costs him and
something more for profit. 1t is no adj
vantage to him to raise wool and
sell it for what it costs him. He may as
well not raise wool as to raise it if he on
ly sells it for what it costs him. Now if
it costs him more to raise wool than it
does a foreign wool-grOwer he must get
from the man who buys the cloth not on
ly this difference in cost but his profit.
But it is the profit only which does him
any good. But the man who buys the
cloth must pay not only the profit which
benefits the farmer, but the difference be-
tween the cost of growing wool in this
country and its cost in other countries.
He therefore suffers more than the farmer
gains. Is it Just that he should be COM
PEELED to do this: Is it good policy for
the government to impose a heavy bur-
den on one citizen in order to secure a
smaller benefit to another:
But this is not all. We have seen tina
the manufacturer must in the first in
stance pay the farmer the difference be-
tween the cost of raising wool in this
country and raising it in foreign coun-
tries. or. pay it as a tariff to the govern
ment. But he will be entitled to a profit
on this increased cost of the wool to him
and this increased profit the man who
uses the cloth must pay. Hemust, there
fore. not only pay the farmer a sum
which is of no profit to him, but must
pay the manufacturer a profit on that
very UNI.
Now the unnecessary and unjust bur-
den on the man who buys the cloth
made from the farmers wool must be
borne by the purchaser himself N ne
must bear it OF all those things which he
buys for his WI use. This burden, too,
must be a perpetual burden, for the rails
ing of wool is not IN infant industry.
, 1t is, on the contrary, a very old one in
this country, and if the farmers cannot
now raise wool as cheaply as it can be
raised in foreign countries, there is no
reason to hope that they will ever be
f able to do so. Therefore we must go on
. perpetually compelling the people who
= use cloth to pay to the men who raise
wool and manufacture it not only a profit
on what they do, but the difference in the
E necessary cost of raising it and manufac-
, turing it here and the cost of doing so
abroad.