The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1888-08-02

of wool decreased 9,1O1 ,4G7. Or 40
per cent, while the value of wool
shrunk SIS. 5.163,779. or IS per cent.
There never has been a year since
1867, when wool sold as high as it
did previous to tho wool tariff of
that year, Sheep values. pounds Of
wool and price have all declined
since its enactment. These figures
and many more equally interesting
may be found in the Office Of the
Secretary of State Robinson aud in
the office of the Ohio Agricultural
Board in Columbus. How much
has the wool grower made by the
wool tariff of 1867?
Why, nothing. On the contrary
he has lost. How Go you account
for 1t?
1 have propounded that question
frequently to such prominent wool
growers and political wool gathcrors
and wool pulers as Hon. Columbus
Dolano and Hon. David Harpster,
but neither of them Will answer the
question.
Whyf
Because they know a frank and
honest answer would explode
the wool tariff illusion. Wool is
a raw material. Any forn, of
tax upon a raw material is injnr
ious to it, and generally fatal
What raw material needs is
wide and a ready market where
demand exists. The only eff
feet that the wool tariff Of 1867
had was to shut our raw wool out
of the markets of The world. With
a restricted market. price,, Of
course, declined. Thcp IN the
other hand the tariff checked
manufactures i'll America and
prevented the Eaiura! demand
for American wool at home.
How is thai
There ar, certain woods which
we neither. do nor can produce,
but wnich are necessary 10 mix
WITH our domestic woods to make
h merican manufacture a success.
lhe tariff on imported wool in
creases the cost Of manufacture
so much hat while the proiuct
is costly TO the American con-
sumer the profit to the Am'ri-
can lnanIfac,urpI does nDi enable
him to compete with Tie foreign
manufacturer. We lack prop
er demand f or our raw wool
Without The wool tariff Ameri-
can woolen mills today would
keep up such a constant demand
for American woods 10 be manu-
facturep in connection with the
imported article that you would
see no such destruction of great
agriculture interest as followed
the enactment of the wool tariff
of 1867. The wool tariff from
the beginning was sham to de-
lude farmers into the belief that
they were sharing that "protec
ton" under which monopolists
have grown immensely rich at
the expense Of the masses, and
especially at the expense of the
farmers themselves. TO use the
taxing power of the Government
for any other purpose than to
raise such revenues as are neces-
sary for an honest ard econom-
zeal Government, IS fatal alike to
public and private interests. l,
fattens the fax eater at the eX-
pense of the tax payer. Just and
necessary taxation is at best a
burden. Unjust and unnecessary
taxation Is a curse, and TO persis!
in imposing it on the people is
b 1t little short of a crime.
Then you hold that tariff and
"protection' are simply taxation.
Most assuredly.
Such being the case, the tari f
question is easily understood. II
embraces solely the levying and
collection of vast and m,neces
sary revenues from the people
by means of which competition
in trade is shut out and the mark
ct for our own products is re-
stricted for the purpose of giving
limited class an advantage fol
which the masses pay, either al
the custom houses or to the
"trusts' which alone are made
possible by shutting out fail
competition with he rest Of the
world. Is that 500
! You have expressed il all in 6
paragraph, and explained why
there should be a just, fair and
equitable revision of the farlt
and a reduction of tax burdens
as proposed in the Mills bill.
!, Then why DO the Republican
leaders wade through seas 0
sophistry and rivers OF doubled
and twisted figures on this ques
ton?
90 deceive, delude and mis-
lead, untlinking people. Simpl,
that and nothing more.
w. A. TAYLOR.
The Indjanapolis journal i