The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1888-06-13
COLD FACTS FOR FARMERS.
HEAVILY TAXED AND NO RETURNS.
The Wool TariR-The Prosperity of the
Growers Not Dependent Upon the Duties
Imports-How Free Wool VIII
Work to Their Advantage.

Congressman John E. Russell of the Tenth
Massachusetts, district (ex-secretary OF the
State board Of agriculture) spoke in part as
follows in the tariff debate in the house Of rep
resentatives, May IS:
will try to make the point that the prosper
ity Of wool growing is not dependent upon a
tax on imported wool.
The woOl-grower is dependent for the sale Of
his wool upon the manufacturers OF his own
country alone. Wool is the only one Of our
farm products Of considerable value for which
there is no foreign demand.
Ii there is O surplus it must remain on hand.
The manufacturers of other nations are not ac-
custOmed 10 our woods, and will not take them.
Like ali other things men wish to sell, its
price will be governed by the demand for it;
that demand Will arise from the prosperity OF
your customers, and that only. Therefore, If
the business Of the wooden manufacturers is
good, you will get fair price for. your WOOL
but II these men are not successful, II their
business is hard and waning your market
grows narrow and wool falls as we have seen
IL fall during the last ten years.
The wOol-grOwer and the manufacturer can
have no divided interest; they must flourish to-
gether or they must languish together, and at
this time they are equally unhappy. A gentle
man on the other side told me this morning that
if / could establish the fact that the wool in
dustry would improve with wool on the free
list he would vote Tor II.
do not expect to convince him, though
see him listening. 1t is too near a presidential
election, and the party whip has sharp lash.
Laughter.
How, sir, did we get the blessing of a high
tax on imported wool? 1t was the result OF a
combination between wool men and manu-
facturers.
Prior to 1857 we have a nominal duty on
wool, and the fortunate experience of the
country in every department of industry and
enterprise under the tariff Of 1916 led TO the
further reduction of the tariff of 1857. And
as had the pleasure to remind the house in
the debate the other day, the whole delegation
from Massachusetts, here and at the other end
of the capitol voted for it. In that revision
wool under 20 cents pound was made free.
The effect upon wool was immediate. It
went up, and in 1889 it was as high as il has
ers of Massachusetts, and Rhode Island made
more money than they ever did in any year OF
their business.
They flourish together, because their inter-
ests are identical.
When The gentleman from Illinois Mr. Hop
kinsl said: Continue this tariff and even raise
1t, and we will produce all the wool required in
this country" ! saw that he did not Under
stand the relation OF wool-growers to manu-
facturers.
No manufacturing people in our day can
raise all Its own wool. No soil or climate viii
fabrics ranging from coarse carpets to cloths
mixed with silk. The woods grown in America
are not complete raw material, even for the
cloths for mems ordinary wear. We are con-
trolled by fashion. The manufacturer must
make what is demanded. He has TO make cloths
such as people who pay high prices viii buy.
In order to get material for such clothing the
woOl-buyer must 90 10 the worlds market and
select aecces TO mix and blend with American
wool. He may require Australian, or African,
or South American, or Spanish, or French
woods for his purpose, and il he does he will
pay from 90 TO 70 per cent. duty on them, and
that handicaps him In competition with the
men who have free wool; he is thus az disad-
vantage with the manufactu rers OF England,
France, Belgium and Germany, the great cloth
exporting countries.
# is urged here that our people cannot keep
said our sheep viii disappear; one will forget
the taste Of mutton. This is not the teaching
Of experience here or abroad.
The high-priced lands of England, open to
the competition OF mankind, carry more sheep
than in former days. The pastures of France
have double the sheep they had when wool
was protected.
No vote Of mine would ever be given con
sciously against the interests OF the American
farmer, but / would take the duty off of wool,
for believe that in less than year the price
of wool would advance, because the wooden
manufacturer freed from the tax on two-thirds
of his raw material, would be better able to buy
the other third. Applause on the democratic
side