Wichita eagle., 1888-05-02
SHEEP AND THE TARIFF.

The only part of said article that Is
worthy OF consideration is as 1ollOWs:
Had it not been for the reduction OF the
duty on wool the land that produces this
surplus OF wheat might have been utlllzed
in sheep raising. This would add TO the
fertility Of the soil and with proper pro
lection bring good return, etc. we
propose to treat this question square
and fairly, make no statements only such
as we know to be true, knowing That our
data is perfectly reliable, and before we
proceed farther we will offer the following
showing the trade of four OF our most I'M
portant governments in WOODEN manuIac-
tured goods, for the year 1881:
Imports. Exports.
England. ........ $50, 000,OOO SlU3,Vy0,UO
Germany ......... 25,0O0,Oo0 9t,OU'UV
France. 100000 100000
United States s., OO0, 600 100000
We have given this statement for the
year 1881 to show what tarlf1 protectlon
OF from Go to SO per cent ad valorem and
specific on wooden goods has done Tor
the wool business of the United states
in nine years, for this duty had
been the same since the act or 1877, up 10
1868, when the great reform tariff came
in. Since then the tariff ad valorem ana
specific has been from 80 TO 40 per cent,
and is that amount today on the goods al
ready mentioned. We do not want TO oc-
cupy too much of your valuable space or
we would & i've tables taken from the Uni
ted States census reports for the ten years
ending in 1880 to show that there had been
a very material falling off in the number
OF sheep and the amount OF wool produced
IN the United States from 1917 up TO 1871,
the years when the tariff duty on the
wooden goods already mentioned amount
ell to from 60 to 30 per cent. The protec-
ton party of our country, who are work,
ing against the interest OF the farmer and
laboring man, must admit that the above
showing is rather humlliating for the nj
ted States. Under a tariff duty OF from %
to SO per cent the United states exported
only four hundred thousand dollars worth
of manufactured wooden goods, and this
duty had been the same for nine years pre-
viouS to 1881.
Now if the table proves anything at all
it proves our proposition in the first
place, viz: that the protection to
wooden industries is not suffi-
Gent to enable us to produce our
own clothing. We claim that we could
not, even under the duty before the re-
duction of 1888. produce enough for
home consumption, much less export
any woolens, and now this man attempts
to dlsprove our argument by giving a
table of figures, which, if true, estab-
fishes that point beyond controversy.
What mixture of homogeneous ideas
the free traders have anyhow. Mills,
Carlisle and Breckenridge, the great
champions of free trade, assert that
protection stimulates to our production,
while this apostle of tariff reform pro-
duces figures which prove just the con-
trary. But while we exported but little
in the period named, our friend takes
good care not to mention the amount
produced in woolens and worsteds. In
1870 the productions aggregate S173,-
100000 and in 1880, 1874. 100000. Yet
we did not have enough and had to I'M
port both wool and woolens. England S
exports and our imports tell the whole
story just as we claimed, yet our friend
volunteers the above figures as further
proof of the correctness of our PROPOSE
ton. 1t is the ruinous competition from
England that is running up our imports
and running down our exports, and just
in proportion as we reduce the tariff we
increase our imports and decrease our
exports. Now let us see about that de-
crease in the number of sheep and the
amount of wool during the protection
period he mentions. He gives no figures.
The Beacon's space is too valuable. We
will submit few figures. Beginning
with 1872 this is the record of wool pro-
duction in round million pounds each
number representing year in regular
order: $50, 159. 40, 1S1, 1872, 200,
20S, 211 and 232; and by going
! on down it will be seen
that lust as soon as the
reduction of the duty in 1883 could take
effect, there commenced a decline in
production and an increase in the impor-
tations The reduction of 'S3 could
hardly have any effect before year, SO
that in 1884 under the impetus of protec-
! ton prior to "a, production reached the
highest point, being 30e million pounds.
In that year we still had to import seven
| ty million pounds. In 1886 our prOduc-
tons fell to 3S5 million pounds, and the
importations jumped up to ia million
pounds. Instead of a decrease in the
number of sheep for the period he men
lions there was a steady increase as the
figures show, here they are; In 1880 we
had in round numbers, twenty-eight mil
lion sheep: in 1875, thirty three million:
! in 1880. forty million. This steady in
crease kept up until 1884. when we had
over fifty million. But the decrease has
been sure and steady since then, until
last year we had only fortyfour million.
In another place he says: Free trade
England exports such enormous
amounts, and we. with our extreme high
tariff export next to nothing" He may
have meant of wooden manufactures,
| but if he did he should have said so.
There is room for suspicion, however,
that he intends to convey the idea that
England exports more than she imports,
and that our own country imports eveLy-
thing and exports but little. Every free
trader is anxious to make it appear SO.
1t won't do, though. BY the latest at
tainable figures. the countries mentioned
in the gentIeman's first table stand
| thus:
IMPORTS. EXPORTS.
Great Britain s1,740.0o0o0 s1,3l300o,00
France 46,G0.Oo0 660G0,O0
| Germany 42, GD.o00 Ui,Up.OUt
United States 652. $4,000 s52. $50 on
This is 1887 for the United States.
This shows a slight balance of
trade against us in 1887, Just
as was to be expected from
the reduction of the tariff in 1893. to-
getier with the election OF Democratic
president in 81. In 1881, before these
two calamities struck the country our
exports reached the enormous sum OF
SS9S 010, 900. and our imports were only
1913, 000.o00 showing balance OF trade
in our favor of $l69 900, 600. How does
the comparisons strike our free trade
friend: He saws 1.-THE old cry OF En-
glish pauper labor has been exploded
long ago. just what this means we are
left to conjecture. He evidently intends
to convey the idea that the difference IN
wages cuts no figure in this question. In
support of his idea he saws our superior
/ skin and superior machinery offset this
difference This is a strange admission