Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1888-02-02

The clause have quoted, which covers
clothing tour fine wOols) whatever the
price, less than thirty cents, in foreign
ports, we add to this price ten cents per
pound and freightS to make the price of
our domestic; thus if the foreign price
is twelve cents per pound unwashed, our
clothing, fine, will be worth y cents and
freights added. Without an import du-
ty our domestic fine clothing would be
worth the foreign quotations with
freights added; no more. Although a
pound of domestic may be preferred to
pound of imported, if the foreign cost
One-half cent per pound less it would be
used to the exclusion of home product.
Now, what is the conclusion to be drawn
from the facts! Is it not that we, as
producers in the United States, are
brought into direct competition with all
the world, compelled to put our produc-
ton of raw material from lands, the
cost of which is astounding in cOmpari-
son. Five acres of ours would equal in
cost league of 600 acres in South
America, and that, too, in climate so
mild that the wOol-bearing animal needs
nothing but the spontaneous growth of
vegetation that springs from the bosom
of this sun-kissed land every hour of the
365 days of the year sufficient without
artificial food for the maintenance of
life and healthy wool production. The
range of prices in foreign ports of un-
washed clothing like our XXX fine
washed wool since the tariff revision of
1888, has been from eight to fourteen
cents per pound.
Without protection our Y and XX
would be worth from Is to 20 cents per
pound. Since the revision of the tariff of
1888 our domestic product has decreased
and the imports of wool have more than
doubled in the same time. From 1860
to 1882 the domestic product had de-
creased from two to five pounds per
capita. In the same time the manufac-
turers increased their production from
81 81 to $5 % for each inhabitant. I'm
ports of goods meanwhile declined from
81 20 to n cents per capita. What is
the logical conclusion to be drawn from
the facts and figures? How can we es-
cape the conclusion that without duty
on imports the home production must
decrease, prices decline below point at
which we can with profit produce do
nestle wool, and the decrease of pro-
duction and the defamation of the f1ocks
will go on indefinitely? Once this state
of things is brought about, let me ven
ture to predict much higher range of
prices, both for the raw material and
the manufactured goods these rea-
sons: that the supply of the first is less
ened and the competition Of manufactu-
rers is cut off. Eight years two Presi-
Dental terms will not have passed. with
these or like conditions existing and ev-
cry consumer will realize that under a
protective law the importer paid a bo-
nus for the privilege of our markets, but
now we will pay bonus to the import
er, and this, too, in time of peace. In
the event of war with our ans-Atlantic
cousins it is possible to blockade our
ports until we become nation of pau
pers, wholly dependent on others for
clothing to protect and preserve life.
We do not draw on imagination for
this picture; the argument is fair, the
conclusion just and the results possible.
l began by saying that the present du-
ties protect to the extent of the per cent
levied ON the foreign prices, with freightS
added. ! now want to call your atten-
ton to this fact-the impOSsi6ility of
regulating and securing uniform high
prices by legislation. l regard this as
one of the great stumbling blocks, often,
even, to the friends of protection. I'm
less duties are positioely pTOhjbitOry our
wool product will come into competition
with the wool product of all nations, as
before stated; and the wool producing
nations of the world are Influenced in
their production and prices by numer-
GUS causes, prominent among which |
may name these causes; the climate
heat, cold and drouth-and these engen-
der disease and death; wars that inter-
fere with commerce; the relative value
of gold, its premium, or discount of the
circulating medium. The prevalent
idea with regard to prices under pro-
tective law, is that they should be mi
f0Tmly high. The enemies of protection
have played upon our credulity and want
of knowledge by citing term of years
of low average prices during the opera
ton of protective law, claiming, for
this reason, the law and system are fail
ures. If the causes were known to these,
they have been carefully kept in the
background, and the additional fact that
but for the duty prices would have rang
ed lower by just so much as the per cent.
Of duty imposed. Now, if it be true, in
whole OF in part, that protective duty
enables us to compete in productions,
while in open or unprotected competi-
tiOn the wool industry could not survive,
for a little let us inquire the effect on
agriculture the destruction of the wool
industry would have. Is it not true that
the wool grower for the most part, espe-
cially of the older States, pursues a mix
ed husbandryg If driven from wool
growing, they must employ their lands
in agriculture, growing wheat, rye, bar
ley, &c, largely increasing these pro-
ducts and beyond the ratio of increase
in the population, at the same time less
ening the consuming capacity by just
so much as the flocks are decimated.
A full supply of the cereals means
fair price; an over supply means ruin
ously low prices. All agriculture brings
impoverished lands; impoverished lands
brings annually smaller returns to the
husbandman. The advocates of free
trade claim to favor this plan of cheap
food for the millions. AS yet they have
not informed us how the destruction of
wool production and the manufacture
will affect the labor demand or the abil-