The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-01-12
THE TARIFF ON WOOL.
A Review of Mr.. Cranes Ar
ticle by J. Fl. Paul.
ARGUMENT FOR FREE TRADE.
He Shows UP His Side OF the CUES
tion In Clear and Fore
ible Manner.

/
there appeared an article by Charlie
Crane, in which some statements con
corning the tariff and tse wool industr
were made. shall review that article
The writer begins by assailing Presi
dent Cleveland, who, he says. 'does no
mention the fact that this tax 9TH
tariff is paid by the foreigner .or th
privilege of competing with the Ameri
can grower" The reason that thi
"tact" was not mentioned by the Presi
dent In his message, is that 1t IS not {
fIct. The foreigners dosnet pay thi
tax: Americans pay it; and let all pro.
tectionists read, mark, learn, and in
wardly digest this truth, that when oul
government lev es a tax IN foreign
goods. we pay the tax, and not the
foreigners who furnish the goods. The
writer does not seem to comprehend
that indirect taxes are ultimately paid
by our citizens as truly as direct taxes
are; because when goods are taxed they
are increased in price, and consequen tly
the consumers of the goods really pay
| the taxes, though in the first place they
are paid by the importers.
And yet the writer who penned the
| nonsense above quoted has The effron-
terry to. call the Presidents message
child talk, and to say that the President
and in another place he speaks of Eng
land, Australia and British America as
paying duty on the wool we buy from
them! But this is a fair sample of pro-
tecrionist arguments.
Next, Mr.. Crane argues for the
greatest good to the greatest number
the true OBJECT of all good govern
ments," and says there are $4,000 600
sheep in this country, representing q
capital of $500,0O0,000. Unless each
sheep is worth $40, there is something
wrong with the above figures; besides,
they are mere estimates.
We raised in the census year 35 ,000,-
600 sheep, distributed among 1900 600
farmers, which would give all roun
nine sheep to each farmer. These nine
sheep gave about tfty-fve pounds OF
raw wool. Putting the protection at
10 cents pound, (for Mr.. Crane says
that is all that is coJlected), and each
farmer receives $3.50 for his protection.
His clothing and wooden wear for him
self and family, must cost him, on an
average, at least $50 year. This is
about twice what it would cost him
under free wool, since the combined
wool tariffs and woollen cloth tariffs by
far exceed so per ceut. Therefore. in
woollen goods alone he has to pay tax
of $25, while his imaginary earnings
from sheep raising, due to the tariff,
average only $3.50 (Schoenhof.)
But what of the vast majority, the
millions of people who own no sheep?
They not only lose half the price of their
wool clothing each year, but do not get
the LIS of IT back as the wool growers
do. Now let US hear more from the
wool growers about the greatest good
to the greatest number"
A man bought hog for S., fed it 500
worth of corn, and finally sold it for
SIS. He said he made money on the
hog, but lost on the corn; and it is Just
so with our wool industry.
Mr.. Crane sympathizes with the
woollen manufacturers, and says that
to meet foreign competition 'they must
either reduce the wages of their EN-
ployees or secure cheaper WOOL" Elk
actly so. But they cannot require
cheaper wool with the present thrift,
while they can and do reduce the wages
of their employees; and this is the way
in which the tariff aids the wage-earner.
1t reduces his aOGgeS. Allowing for the
decline in the price of wool, and our
present tariff is as high as the war tariff |
was, it varies from 80 to over 70 D = |
cent, and that too on a material i'm |
ported free of duty by all industrial ma
tons except our own Since our manu- |
facturers pay over twice as much for |
ra y materials as foreigners do, is it any |
wonder they must pay small wages? Is |
it any wonder that Wocllen manu- |
facturers fail so frequently? or that we |
still import 40 per cent. of all the wool |
len cloth we wearP It IS because this |
tariff on wool cripples our manufactures
that statesmen object to it. They have
no grudge against wool; on the con-
trary, they desire that we shall get this
necessary article at least as cheap as
foreigners can get it; and the fact that
our country is well adapted to the pro-
duction of wool, is NJ 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 pre-
sent tariff.
I suggest the following paraphrase
for the gentleman's next para
graph: Take the duty of wool |
and the American farmer will
not lower himself to compete with |
the naked Australian; but will continue
to make his usual large profits from
business in which the Australian can
not compete with him; while the
American manufacturer will be able to
pay higher wages to his now degraded
nd will also be able to COM
pete with all foreigners in cloth-mak-
ing. s0r
The gentleman asks, why, sir, is
this country the home of the homeless
and refuge of the poor? Why does the
poorly clothed emigrant,
when he first presses the soil of
America, offer up prayer of thankful
ness? Because - % of the
tariffon wool One knows not whether
TO confute, or to laugh at, this climax of
absurdity. When a-citizensof this en-
lightened country gravely states that we
are prosperous because our manufac-
turers pay a tax of 1O 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
cfc ooh ~ 81