Sacramento daily record-union., 1888-10-27
OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTHS THEY
ARE CONVICTED.

In 1888 the wool tariff schedule was re-
vised, several articles were free-listed, and
some internal revenue levies removed
The slight reduction of the rate on wool
was accomplished by Democratic votes, the
Republicans dividing. Immediately the
Democratic press and speakers throughout
| the land denounced the small reductiC n
made in the wool duty. They charged
the Republican party with the response
b-.ity, and in Ohio made it the subject of
an especially strong and urgent appeal to
firmers to vote for the Democratic State
ticket.
Governor Hoadly-a candidate for favor
III 1SSS-led in the denunciation in that
State, and bemoaned long and loudly " the
great wrong that had been done to the
farmer" The result was that the wool
growers became frightened and voted the
Democratic State ticket, which was elected
on the solemn pledge of the Democrats to
right the wrong"
They did not keep the pledge. Whatever
may have been their possible intention to
do so, it was soon abandoned, but there is
no good reason for believing that they were
sincere in making the pledge in the first
instance. The message of Mr.. Cleveland,
and the bill of Roger Q. Mills assailing the
wool tariff, revealed the animus OF the
party and astounded the wool-growers-
to free-list wool was to blot out their in
dustry, and yet this proposition comes to-
day from party that so recently as 1888
wore out the highways of Ohio with
marching up and down end shouting about
the iniamy of the outrage in reducing the
duty upon wool slightly, and that grew
hoarse with protesting and promising that
if the Democracy was once seated the duty
should be restored
We remember celebrated circular letter
issued in the State campaign by the Ohio
Democratic State Central Committee. that
scored the Republican party to the raw for
reducing the wool duty In this year, 1888,
the Republican party has hunted up that
self-same circular, and now reprints it as a
campaign document. 1t had these fam
ing head lines, which we preserve in the
reproduction
THE REDUCTION ON WooL-REPuBLr-
CAN TARIFF TINKERrNG COST THE ONO
WooL-GRowERs SIX MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
-FLEEcING THE FLOCK MAsrERs-How
II WAS DONE AND Vino Dip IT.
We have room for but few extracts
from this notorious document that rises up
in this day to plague the Democratic lead
ers and strike them dumb, as it effectually
does. For instance, this precious letter,
which the Democratic Committee printed
and circulated by the ton, said:
In no State in the Union is there an industry
more important than that of wool-growing in
Ohio. In 1882, the number of sheep owned by
one-tenth of the whole number in the United
States The value of these four and one-half
million of sheep is stated at Sl3 Ssh PSI In 1881
tthe statistics for 1852 are not yet obtainable),
| the number OF pounds shorn in Ohio was %
| COL. sol. These are enormous aggregates and
certainly show that wool growing is source of
| vast wealth to our people, as It is one of the
most widespread of our industries.
This ought to be sufficient but we do not
resist the temptation to reproduce other
portions of this letter which the Democrats
all over the country have prayed might not
be brought 10 light. The circular gees on
+ to say that the wool-growing interest has a
] right to expect from the Federal Govern
ment:
! First-That it shall receive as much consider
alton and encouragement as are shown to any
ether interest whatsoever.