The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1888-04-13
THE TARIFF DISCUSSION.

strong arguments can be made on both
sides. AS the voters must decide the
question, it is very necessary they should
discuss it, and was glad to read John
Sauber's views in the TELEGRAPH oil
March 20. Mr.. Sauber must know tina,
the price of wool steadily declined under
the high tariff of 1867, and therefore
there must be other things other con-
ditions-that affect the price of wool. II
the tariff is the only thing that affects
the price of wool, it would demonstrate
that high tariff lowers the price of wool,
and if the higher tariff Of 1867 is re-en-
acted it will make the price of wool 20
still lower. An argument very frequent
ly used by protectionists is, that the eff
feet OF high tariff is to lower prices,
and offer that as reason why we ought
to favor tariff tax
DOES Mr.. SAUBER Know
that the Republican party claims the
credit of reducing the tariff tax by the
enactment of 1888? Does he know the
measure was endorsed by Republican
Senate, and was signed by Republican
President? The reduction of tariff in
1888 had no effect whatever on the price
of wool, and could have been reduced
still more without affecting its price. A
potent factor in lowering the price of
wool was the rapidly increasing number
Of sheep, and the lessened ability of
working people to buy and consume
wooden goods. And the reason the peo-
pie cannot buy more is because they are
burdened SO heavily by war tariff tax.
STK1KE OFF ALL THE TAXES
paid by the working men on the neces-
saries of life, and they will be able to
buy more wooden goods and create a
larger demand for wool. have showed
before how taking off all the tariff tax
on imported wool would benefit the wool
grower. Carpet and low grade blanket
woods are not produced here, because
the American wool grower can make
larger profits growing better qualities of
wool. The fine, soft, lustrous grades of
Australian wool cannot be produced in
this climate. If the American manu-
facturer could buy these woods as cheap
ly as the European manufacturer the
American manufacturer could make
cloth and sell it abroad in competition
with the European manufacturer. This
would set many idle mills and operatives
at work and create much larger de-
mand for home grown woods. The
reason the number Of sheep is reduced
in California is because farmers have
turned their attention to producing
something that pays more profit than
wool growing. There is noe as many
sheep in Wisconsin as there was ten
years ago. But there are many more
COWS. I don't know of single idle
farm, of a single idle farmer.
The TROUBLE Is
we are overwhelmed with work and
can't find help enough to remedy the
situation. Are the farmers of California
their sheep, reducing the
wool clip and sitting in the shade with
folded hands waiting for Congress to
raise the price of wool by levying a
higher tax, which must be paid by every
man, woman and child who can afford
to wear little wool? If a higher tariff
tax will make wool growing more pro-
fitable in California it will be because it
raises the price of wool. And if the
price of wool is raised the people who
buy and wear wooden goods will have to
pay the increased price out of their
earnings. There are million wool
growers in the United States. Does Mr..
Sauber want the other ffty-nine millions
to contribute enough every year to make
up the losses of the wool grower? But in
fact / believe that sheep husbandry can
be made as profitable, even now, as any
other branch of farming. It pays to
grow mutton, but you want good NUT
ton sheep. A sheep that requires three
or four years to mature may not give a
profit out of the wool product; but a
sheep that will mature a good mutton
carcass in year, or, like Mr.. P. G.
Torrey's, make IS Id. lambs at weaving,
will afford a fair profit. One of the
most foolish things California or any
other farmer can do is to depend on q
tariff for his prosperity. Sooner or later
the tariff taxpayers will revolt and re-
fuse to pay the unjust tax.
R. F. ROBERTS.