The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-02-12
Mr.. Thompson Enters the
Lists Once More.
OTHER FACTS AND FIGURES.
Viewed by One Interested in
The Wool Industry.
To the Editor of THE HERALD:

the Ireo-traQor, MI. HaQI. Inc gentle
man reminds me of person pe had
in our town a few years ago who
offered wager that he could beat him
self jumping. Mr.. Paul tried some two
weeks ago to answer my former article,
but after studying over the matter, he
come to the conclusion that he can't
beat himself on -ree-trade, hence his
second attempt.
FIRST, Mr.. Paul would have it under
stood that 1 made his figures appear
ridiculous; that his figures apl
ridiculous no one will deny, but the
gentleman made them appear so HIM
self, and now he is attempt < " make
them appear correct by mixing i'll some
dyes, chemicals, and a score of other
things. presumably gum arabic, :2usn-
rooms, Chinese cooAs, etc.
And again, Mr.. Paul writes, but his
next .dea, that the Increased price of
home made woolien CLOTH. $8I 100 600
due to the tariff, represents that amount
of profit to the manufacturers IS rather
rich | did not say it dad, but | did say
that according to the gentleman's own
figures $50 0O0, 900 would be the manu-
lecturers loss If the tariff were taken
off wool and woollens, not off dyes and
chemicals, as there was no hing said
about those articles; nor does it
necessarily follow that if the tariff is
taken off wool and woollens, it is also
taken Oft dyes and chemicals, and
score of other things. But this END If
logic is in keeping with the rest of the
geutleman's stuff.
Let US look at Mr.. Paul's figures once
more. He says there is no danger
threatening wool-gr. wers in the tariff
reduction, hence the price would not
under free Wool, be cents a pound as
Mr.. Thompson thinks, and there sre
re ,sons for supposing that it would
command even higher price tan 1t
does at the present time. Now hear
what he says in another place. 1t IS
because this tariff on wool Cripples our
manufacturers that statesmen object
to it. They have no grudge against
wool; on the contrary, they desire that
we shall get this necessary sarticle at
least SIS cheap as foreigners can get it
and the fact hat our country IS well
adapted to the production of wool is no
reason why we should pay twice as
much for it as countries that cannot
produce it at ALL Yet this is what We
do under our present tariff. The above
nee dis no comment.
Now, hear how Mr.. Paul proposes to
to save the $ll2, ,00O that 1 said
would be lost to this country. He
quotes from some of his standard works
on cotton to explain, and arrives at the
conclusion that if We pay Australia
S1C0, 100000 a year for wool, we have
lost nothing, as we have its value in
wool. SO far, so good, but suppose e
pay this money TO our own wool
growers-we would have its value in
wool Just the same, and we would have |
the money also; therefore, l say there |
would be that much saved to the coun
try eacn year, or rather that much lost |
to the country each year, If we import |
our wool instead of growing it ourselves |
The free-trader exclaims tina the |
surplus accumulates in the United |
States Treasury at the rate of $780, !
600, QUO a year, and that If this CON- !
tinues it will finally make money scarce. |
Then if we ship out of the country |
double that amount each year for wool, |
will it not make it scarcer? ! think it |
will. But, says Mr.. Paul. you must |
grow horses and cattle instead OF sheep. |
That is just what the Eastern States |
have been doing since the small reduc
ton of the tariff on wool in 1888, and |
that accounts for the depression IN the |
horse and cattle market. A few years |
ago COWS sold here for $50. per head
now they will not bring $50. A horse |
that a few years ago sold for $3.50, |
cannot be sold to-day for SIS. and yet !
the gentleman would have US grow |
more horses and cattle. What is most |
scarce in our country is cash, and the |
free trader would have us ship this |
article out of the country anu import |
in its stead, that the country |
is already flooded with.
Let me quote once more from Mr.. |
Pauls articles, and | am done with |
the gentitman lie says ''one knows |
not whether to confute or to laugh at |
the climax OF absurdity when a CT izen |
of this enlightened country, gravely |
states that we are prosperous because |
our manufacturers pay tax OF 10
cents per pound on the shoddy
the woollen rags, the wool waste,
grease and dirt they import before
making it into the cheap shoddy !
clothing that our people pay so much
for" Now, hear what be says in his
next: The idea that the American
growers would suffer greatly by a re-
UlUNdl vi bDC plCSC1O 'd1liA - luA OllCl
shown to be incorrect, by the following |
considerations-the Australian woods !
best suited for the United States market |
are, as rule, soft-handhng, fine haired |
and silky" According to the above |
the American manufacturer buys this |
soft-handling, fine-haired and silky |
wool to make into cheap shoddy cloth !
ing. Ii the gentleman wishes to con- |
tinue to appear ridiculous, keep IN |
changing figures. First. say that if the |
tariff is taken off wool, the country will |
save $50 600, 900 each year, and in the |
next say if the tariff is taken off wool |
it will be higher; then say as he did |
that ne was pleased with my figures |
and then again say he was not; that |
they made him app. ar ridiculous.
N. THOMPSON,
EBHRA1M, February 9th, 1888.
Dancing.