Mower County transcript. [volume] (Lansing, Minn.) 1868-1915, 1888-04-11

per head is $108, ,961, 1897; value of annual
wool clip probably $65, 100000 to $780,
OOO. 900. Can these sheep or the capital
they represent be wiped out with i'm
punity and the nation-suffer no loss.
Or say these sheep were displaced by their
equivalent In cows, which equivalent
think, so far as feed is concerned, may
fairly be put at 8, 708, ,951. This would be
an addition of over fifty per cent. to our
present number. Or say half of this
number were beef cattle and half cows.
How would this addition affect these two
already depressed industries. Or say these
million men with their capital aud en-
ploYees should turn their attention to
growing cereals. How would that affect
grain growers. Certainly it would require
not only increased home markets, but in
crease foreign markets likewise. Need I
that he is interested not only in preserv-
ing all the varied industries we now pos
sess but in acquiring others also, even if
they require the fostering care of govern
ment.
A committee of this same house of
congress propose to (and no doubt will
succeedD appropriate twenty millions of
dollars toward river and barbor improve
ment. But then this is more directly in
the interest of the wealthy class, so who
kicks. We properly approve of the
Government extending it's fostering care
over the sciences, commerce, mining.
manufactures, and all other agricultural
and animal industries, but as to this fright
fully feroclous monster, the sheep, you
call halt-and the cry echoes and
reaches from center to circumference.
Death and destruction to American sheep
but long life and prosperity to foreign
sheep and their owners?
But perhaps you ask will this proposed
legislation If consuminated really prove
disastrous to the wool industry. My
experience satisfies me that it will effec,
tually knife every fine wool sheep in our
northern and western states, and three
fourths of the coarse woods. Also from
the best information possess, corrobor-
ated by deductions from statistics. l am
satisfied the result will be the same in all
our states and territories within a very
limited time.
Under the comparatively high tariff
then existing between the years 1875 and
1888 the number of sheep IN the United
States increased about ISL million, or
nearly at the rate Of two millions per
year, with wool in proportion. Since the
reduction of from two to three cents by
the tariff legislation of 1883, the number
of sheep has declined at the rate of over
a million year, with corresponding IN
crease in imported woods.
We are now sen(.ing abroad over six
teen million dollars annually in payment
for foreign wool that might and ought to
be produced at home.
For the benefit of the curious that may
not have statistics to refer to, l will name
some of the States that have suffered the
largest diminution in number OF sheep:
Texas, 2, ,272, ,976, Ohio, GAG. Az, Wisconsin
4o7 13a California COG. Q70, Kansas 1858, ,O33,
Pennsylvania 2O4, $50. New Mexico Terri
tory of 6O5.587, Minnesota with only
285, 725 shows an increase of 1868, but
cuts no figure either way. Montana, Ida
no, Oregon, Washington Territory and
Utah show gain. Colorado, where the
range system was first adopted, barely
holds its own. am satisfied that grass
on the arid plains of our territories can
not long Withstand the close cropping
and tramping of sheep.
Now this problem presents itself, if the
tariff legislation of two to three cents per
pound reduction in 1883 cause stop in
previous rate of increase of two millions
per year and an actual shrinkage of a
million per year in number of sheep. what
will the result be If wool is put on the
free list2 The merest tyro must answer,
disastrous. Again, If the million sheepmen
are forced to turn their attention to other
agriculture al pursuits, how will 1t effect
! those other pursuits. This aforesaid ex-
ecutive committee will please answer.
There is however one kind of wool Pres
ident Cleveland and his friends evidently
believe in, that is, the kind politicians
pull over the voters eyes.
The question now arises, are there any
compensating advantages to be derived
from the passage of this bill In the way
to be qualified to speak as positively IN
this respect as on the other features OF
the bill, l must say can't see any. To
be sure there is reduction of the specific
dutv on goods which ranged from five to
thlrty-tive cents per pound, but If the law
of supply and demand operates in this
case as it usually does, it must result IN
higher rather than lower prices.
We now have this propositions: Fro m
the worlds supply of wool deduct the
bulk of our usualAmerican clip(for that il
what it will come toy will result greatly
diminished supply. Naturally and artifici
ally also (for spectators improve such
chances) wool is greatly advanced IN
price the world over Wool advanced, il
follows that goods advance invariably
higher in proportion than wool. Now
what have We? Plenty of food for retlec
.tion, but no cheap goods in sight Agar
we all know, and President Cleveland
recognized the fact in his message, that
our manufacturers combine and form
trusts which operate both ways, to cheap
en- the price of wool and enhance the
price of goods beyond the price, natural
competition would establish, yet the
Mills bill is admirably adapted to pro
mote the success of these same unho]y
combinations, and is therefore in the in
terests of monopoly. Is not that plain
Messrs Executive Committee of the MIN
nesota State Alliance? 1t is charitable tt
suppose that this committee lost theil
thinking caps some time previous to their
recent meeting in St. Paul, or the politi
cal atmosphere of st. Paul demoralizec
them.
Most respectfully do ask what equity
or justice is there in giving our manufac
turers the opportunity to exact from Vi
from thirty to forty per cent more thar
they will charge our neighbors-Jea1
Crapeau, the Mexican greaser, or the hal
| Indian If Central Or SOuth America fO