St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-03-05
THE TARIFF ON WOOL.
Facts and Figures to Show That
Reduced Tariff Does Not Ruin
Wool Growing.

heUuCeU IdFlH DOeS NOC IAuiu
Wool Growing.
An intelligent farmer, in an article in
the Madison Press, makes these forcible
points: The great hue and cry of pro-
tectionists. called forth by the message
of President Cleveland, seems to be
that his recommendation is destined to
annihilate the wool interests in the
United States. The mOduS operandi of
its taking off does rot appear to me to
be very clearly explained by any of the
mourners at the funeral, but they say
that the funeral is ordered in the event
of congress adopting Cleveland'S rec
fully as l was able with, acknowledge,
rather limited opportunities, the price
of wool in New York and Lon
don respectively, for several
years, and | find that the price
varies in favor of London from 8 to z
cents per pound. l think the average
price in London is about cents less
than New York. Now if those who are
bowling about cheap foreign wool eX-
pect to wipe out American wool by i'm
porting from England, you see yourself
that it could not possibly lower the price
more than 3 or cents. For wool could
not come over to this country as ballast,
but would have to pay freight. But can
wool be produced in England cheaper
than in the United States? That idea
is too absurd for argument. What then
makes the price of wool in England?
Evidently the supply from Australia
and other Woodworking countries.
England is a free market, and, with no
tariff to limit the supply, wool is only 5
cents cheaper there than here.
A great deal has been said about the
stop bowling for little while and get
at the bottom facts of this matter. Tell
ing the truth Is something new in poll
tics, and therefore will be quite refresh
ing to the readers of party papers. The
New York price for medium wool III
1883, before the reduction, was % cents.
In 1884 the same wool was worth 26
cents. In 1885, ~ cents. In 1856, 80
cents, and in 1887, 80 cents. You see
that frost was pretty severe, almost
froZe out the wool growers. This as
pect of the wool problem is not the one
protectioniStS are won't to refer to. In
1870 there were 2S,477,951 sheep in the
United States. In 1880, 40,76S, 900, an
increase in ten years of over fourteen
and quarter million. In 1884
there were 50,616,626, an increase Of
nearly ten millions in four years. This
was the top. The number decreased in
1885 to $4,000, 243; in 1856, $685., 3331 and
in 1887, a, $50, 3l4. Now what did the
business, the tariff? In 1884, when we
had the most sheep, wool was worth 26
cents, an increase of l cent over the
price before the tariff reduction. In
1885 we lost 100000 sheep and gained
cent per pound in the price Of wool. In
1856 the number of sheep was reduced
100000 and the price of wool went up
5cents. In 1887 the number of sheep
reduced about 100000 and the price
the same. Now did the tariff reduce
the number of sheep? If the flock mas
tiers could afford to keep fifty and one
half millions of sheep and sell wool at
20 cents in 1854, how was it that they
could only keep forty and a half mill
ions in 1887, when wool was worth 80
cents in the same market?
am afraid we will have to look to
some other cause for the reduction.
JOHN LATHRoP.