Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1888-02-02
Foraker's BIeat on Wool.

FOrdkers bieat on wool.
The section Of Gov Foraker's mess
age relating to the tariff on wool is
unusual. The assertion that the two
cent a pound reduction of the wool
tariff in 1888 has caused In 1887 de-
cline of11 cents apOund in the price of
wool as compared with the year of the
tariff change is unworthy any man pre-
tending to truth and honesty of state
ment. The fact is that the decline in
the price of wool and the number of
sheep In the country east of the Mis-
surf began with the imposition of the
heavy duty in 1867, which excluded for
eign woods needed for mixing with the
American product, and so lessened the
demand for the latter in manufacture
ing. The tax thus foolishly imposed
crippled the woolen manufacturers and
restricted the market for American
fleeces. Under such conditions it be-
came improbable to breed sheep for
wool alone on high-priced lands and
sheep-husbandry was transferred to the
grazing districts in the extreme south
west. At most, from the high-bounty
point of view, the wool reduction
made by the Arthur Administration
in 1888 could not have lessened the SELL
ing price of wool more than from one
to three cents per pound, according to
the grade of the fleece.
The trouble with wool-growing in
Ohio is that the farmers can't afford to
raise and feed sheep at from one-third
to one-half a cent day. At the price
of wool i'm 1882, before the slight reduc-
fiOn of fho dnfv wool nrouinn Onlxy
paid One-half cent day for sheep keep
ing and now it allows only one-third of
cent q day. In the mild climate and
on the cheap. land of the Southwest
sheep husbandry may be practiced with
view to profit from the wool at these
figures, but not one in Ohio. Farm land
in Ohio is too valuable to be devoted to
sheep growing, and hence farmers are
lessening their fiocks and growing pro-
ducts that pay more mOney-more cat
tie, hogs, corn, oats barley, buckwheat,
butter, poultry, etc. They lose moth
ing by reducing their fiocks, but make
money in abandoning an Improbable
industry, and the wealth of the State
is promoted by discontinuing wool
growing at any rate under so cents a
pound. Half the farmers of Ohio
those living on the rough and hilly por-
tions will always keep few sheep to
pick up q living eating fence-corner
grass or pasturing on rough knobs, in
timber land and other waste spots.
These sheep are kept for mutton, not
for wool. The tariff on wool does not
reimburse these sheep growers for 10
per cent. of the extra cost it causes them
in the purchase of winter clothing.
Half the 69 per cent. tariff OH wooden
clothing could be abolished if wool
were put on the free list. The other
half of the Ohio farmers who have no
sheep suffer dead loss from the extra
cost of their winter clothing. The
nearly four millions of Ohio people
would have their winter clothing 20
millions of dollars cheaper than this
great essential of existence in a north
ern latitude now costs them but for the
short-sighted, blundering stupid folly
of maintaining the present war taxes
on wool and woolens. Gov. Foraker
would have served the interests of his
State better by telling the Buckeyes
the plain, unvarnished truth in regard
to the folly and stupidity of the wool
and wooden goods tariff. No increase
of that tariff could make wool growing
profitable in Ohio, for the reason that
the farmers of that State cannot with
stand the competition of the flockmas-
ters in the Southwest, and the higher
the tariff the worse the competition.
If the tariff on wool we're put high
enough for the sheep growers in New
Mexico and Texas to send their fiocks
east for slaughter and sell the mutton
as we'll as the fleece in eastern cities,
there would be an end ofsheep grow
ing in the East, even for the meat value
of the animals. High wool tariffs can
not make fleece growing profitable on
high priced lands, but they do tax the
farmers inordinately for woolen goods
and clothing.
Nor does this high wool tariff
benefit city labor. The worst paid labor
we have in cities and towns is that of
coal miners and operatives in wooden
factories. The high wage rate about
which Foraker tslks in the protected
industries is a sham and q delusion,
and only exists in his Imagination. Let
him study the wage reports of the
United States census returns of 1880 and
never again repeat such error in a grave
EyecutiVa massapn - Gdicn0o Trih,tne