St. Paul daily globe., 1888-08-27
POSITION OF THE NORTHWEST

AT tlme when so many wild aSSer-
tions are being made by the Republi-
can papers that Minnesota is a high
tariff state it is we'll to recall to mind
the letter that G. A. Pillsbury wrote to
Knute Nelson of which the latter made
mention in his speech, upon tariff re-
form IN congress, March 30. After
expressing the hope that Mr.. Nelson
would continue to represent the Fifth
congressional district, Mr.. PillSbury
goes on to say in his letter:
Your course has met with the cordial
approval of nearly all the people in this
state, especially on the tariff question.
think SafeutO say that 80 per cent of
the Democrats and Is per cent OF the
republicans agree with you. Whatever
different opinion there may be as to the
necessity of having general reform of
the tariff in order to promote the inter-
est OF our whole country (and am quite
tarlH would help the country as a
whole, there is certainly no chance
for difference of opinion but
that the Northwest would be immensely
benefited by very material reduction
or our tariff on almost every article. L
hope, whatever is done, that the duty
on Jute cloth will be removed. There
is only one manufactory in the country
that l know of that manufactures the
Jute CLOTH and they make it direct into
the seamless bags. 1t would be good
deal cheaper Tor the millers of the
Northwest to buy out that insti tuition.
as under the present tariff we probably
pay for it every year."
TARIFF VIEWS.
To the Editor of the Globe.
uarv, binbIx, ,>IoocoJ 18Th ,,o,,x
paper. | had been taking the Evening
Journal for two years, but | got so dis
guSted with it that | had to give it up
entirely. l do not like its paint; in
politics it paints everything black in re-
gard to Democratic principles and the
president. | was very glad to read the
"LabOrer Under Foot and the 10y
atty to the Soldiers,' editorials in Mon
days issue. [ am an old soldier and
am taking quite an interest in those
matters. Let you motto be: "Hew to
the line, let the chips fly where they
may" Why don't they protect the
farmers? They are the basis of wealth.
They say that the poor farmers can
raise wheat cheaper in this
country than they can in foreign
danger any one can ship wheat to
this country. If they can raise wheat
here cheaper after paying ''tariff'' on
all material, on all farm implements,
what do they want wool protected for?
Take, for instance, sheep ranges in
Montana, Kansas, Texas. etc.; we know
of many of those ranches have been
running for years on government land.
where they never bought an acre nor
paid single dollar of taxes to the gov
ernment or any one else. Now the
land in England is worth at least S125 an
acre. Can't we raise wool to compete
with them upon our land that is so much
cheaper? Now protection ought to ben
eft the many, not the few. l under
stand three sheep ranches with twenty
men will produce wool enough to
clothe $4,000 people and one factory en-
ploying 100 men will make this into
cloth. Now those $4,000 men who are
consuming these goods will pay on an
average % to 80 per cent as protection
to this firm, which is many times more
than enough to pay the men in the fac
tory. So it would be cheaper for these
consumers to pay those men to be idle
rather than to be shaved in this style.
l wish you would explain this subject in
the GLOBE. DANIEL WYNN.
Minneapolis, Aug. 90.