Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1888-01-15

1867; but after 1858 there was . fall
ing off every year till 1871, and the
product was not again reached unit
1874. That is to say, under the fos
tering care OF the tariff the produc
ton in the United States absolutely
declined. or did not increase for six
years. The country grew and ex.
banded in all other directions, but its
wool industry stood still.
If the product of the older States
alone is considered, the decrease i;
even more marked. The lowest
point was also reached in 1871, but
in 1877, ten years after the tariff was
enacted, the clip was less than it was
in 1868. In fact, the figures of 1885
we're not exceeded until 1881. In
1880 the produce of the older States
was 100000 pounds, and in 1881
it was 1854 100000 pounds, while in
1868 it was 100000 900. In the face
of these figures it certainly cannot be
claimed that the tariff of 1867 fostered
and increased the growth of wool. Nc
such result followed it's enactment.
If we look at the returns of the
number d sheep as given by the agri.
cultural repor,s We find a similar
state OF facts. Immediately after the
enactment of the tariff Of 1867 the
number of sheep in the great wool
producing States began to decline
The total number of sheep in the
United States is given for 1867 as
$780, In 1877 it was 80, S04, 200
After ten years Of protection there
we're fewer sheep in the United States
than there were when the protecting
tariff was enacted.
The loss of sheep in the great WOOL
growing States was frightful. The
following table gives the number fol-
the principal years, showing the low
est ebb in 1873, since which time
there has been a gradual increase. II
will be noted that in 1878 Ohio, Mich.
igan, and all the great wool growing
States had only about half as many
sheep as they had in 1867. 1t has
been said that these returns are mac
curate. but after making all reasona
BILE allo wances for inaccuracies the
fact remains evident beyond a doubt
that no increase in the number o
sheep followed the enactment of the
tariff of 1867. On the contrary, there
was a large decrease.
Ohio, in February, 1866, had 6 1858,
052 sheep; in February, 1867, 7, 1859,
III; in February, 1869, she hat
100000; in January. 1877, she hat
100000; January, 1878, 1888, 900
January, 1879, 100000; December
1880, 4,243, GIG; January, 1882, 5,951
511.
Michigan, in 1886. had 8, 473, 075; il
1882 she had 2,320,752.
Pennsylvania, in 1865, had $3.50,
440; in 1882 she had 1, 1856 ,4SI.
New York, 1866, had 5,117, 148; il
1882 she had l ,732 1872.
Indiana, in 1866, had 2,7S3,367 il
1882 she had LII $40.
Illinois, in 1866, had 2,446,0S1; il
1882 she had 1925, 702.
Wisconsin, in 1856, had 1880, 900
in 1882 she had 1,350,175.
Iowa, in 1866, had 1,950,752; il
1857 she mad 49, ,6Sl.
The total number OF sheep in al
those States in 1866 was 26,S20,S SIS
in 1867, 80, 1873, 222; in 1869, 26, 49,, 100
in 1877, IA, 769, 800; 1878, 1888, 900
1879, 1922 800; in 1880, IA, 122, ITS
in 1882, 13,76l,l50.
Texas, in 1867, had 9,401 ,195; il
1882, 6,S50,000.
California, in 1869, had 1900, 400
in 1880, $685., 344.
According to agricultural reports
the whole number of sheep in tn
United States in 1867 was 80, 1856 1886
in 1877 it was 35, S04, 200; in 1879
was SO, 123, 800; in 1880 it was 43, $40,
500; in 1880, by census, AZ, 49,, 074
in 1881 it was As, 016,224.
In order to see if any connection cal
be traced between the price of WOO
and the tariff, the following table i
presented, showing the tariff change
since 1847 and the market prices o
wool for each year. For convenience
of comparison the specific tariff rate
have been changed to ad valorem b,
assuming probable value for wool
imported. The market price is tina
given by James Lynch and Georg
William Bond. The currenc,
values for period when gold was at
premium-1S62 to 1874, inclusive
are reduced to gold: