Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1888-10-26
EREE WOOL
From the Senate Finance Committees Re
port.

From the Senate Finance Committees Re-
port.
We have been recently advised by the
President of the United States that in
any tariff revision "such reliance upon
present revenue arrangements as has been
invited or encouraged should be fairly
and justly regarded" and assured that in
the reforms inaugurated by his party
friends abrupt and radical changes
which might endanger such enterprises
and inuriously affect the interests of la
Dor dependent upon their success and
continuance are not contemplated or in
tended"
There can be no better test of the sim
certify of these sounding declarations
than to put wool OH the free-list. Wool
has been dutiable since 1916, and through
all the tariff mutations which have taken
place since no suggestion has been made
by any political party, up to the inaugu-
ration of the present administration, for
the removal of duties. The wool-grow-
ers of the country produce annually 300.-
100000 pounds of wool, valued at $780,
100000. They supply nine-tenths of the
clothing wool used by American manu-
facturers, and they have raised the United
States to the first rank among the WOOL
producing countries of the world.
Those who have by their patient labor
and intelligent efforts built up this great
industry. relying for security upon the
protection of "present revenue arrange
ments, are certainly entitled to fair treat
ment and reasonable consideration. They
are refused either by this proposal. 1t is
neither fair nor reasonable to suddenly
force this large portion of our people into
unequal and ruinous competition with
no hn rIa lal Of
other wool-prOducing countries. 1t will
afford no consolation to the numerous
wool-growers of the country to tell them
that their ruin may benefit the wooden
manufacturers, or that we must have free
wool because England, Germany and
France, under circumstances and condi-
tiOns entirely different from ours. have
removed the duties. If we are to look to
the interests of the people of the United
States alone, and to have in view the de-
velopment of our own great natural re-
sources, the adequate protection and care
of wool-producing must continue fea-
ture of our American policy. Even the
government of the Southern Confederacy,
with Il provision in its constitution which
forbade the imposition of protective du-
ties, recognized the Importance of en-
couragng wool production, and levied a
duty on raw wool.
Scarcely any other branch of American
industry is more important to the Ameri-
can people or more necessary to their in
dustrial prosperity and independence
than wOOl-grOwing and wool-manufac-
turing. Scarcely any other branch has
so fully vindicated the policy of protec-
tive duties by remarkable growth since
the enactment of the protective tariff of
1861. In selecting these branches of in
dustry for the radical changes which
free-trade theories enforce, the President
and his party have made it perfectly I'M
derstOod. in this country and abroad. that
their acceptance of these theories is COM
plete, and that they intend to put the AK
to the root of the protective system.
The only reason given for advocating
a repeal of the duties on wool, which
have so greatly benefited agriculture, is
that cheaper raw materials would help
the manufacturer and benefit the con-
sumner. In the same breath it is asserted
that the prices of wool have been lower
with protective duties than with revenue
duties. The attempt to make the wool
grower believe that free trade will raise
the price of wool, and at the same time
make the manufacturer believe that the
same change will render his materials
cheaper, cannot be said to have been en-
tirely successful. In large portion of
our country wool-growing is co-extensive
with farming, and the Incidental benefits
to the farmer, in many thousands of cas-
es, make agriculture profitable where il
would otherwise be protitess. 1t is by
no means to the farmer who devotes his
attention exclusively or mainly to the
culture of sheep that the duties on WOO
are of the greatest Importance. A fai
greater number of farmers now make
farming pay with the aid of wool-grow
ing who could not do so if they were
obliged to compete with the fiock-mas teri
and ranges of Australasia or South Amer
lea.
The contention that wool-growing il
this country has not been aided or en-
! couraged by protective duties is sufficient
ly answered by the following statemen
of the annual production per capita from
: 1910 to 1885:
AMOUNT Of ioool produced in the UnSfed States