St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-01-17
THE WOOL TARIFF.


The convention of wool growers and
manufacturers of WOODEN goods, in re-
cent session at Washington, adopted
resolution memOrialiZing congress for
restoration of the tariff of 1867. 1t will
be well to remember, however, that in
the convention the manufacturers of
WOODEN goods were in excess of the wool
growers. That was because the manu-
facturer of WOODEN goods is more inter
eSted in the subject than the wool
grower.
The last report of the auditor of Iowa
furnishes some significant statistics
concerning the decline of the wool
growing industry during the period of
our high tariff. In the year 1867 there
were 1,354,60S sheep in Iowa. There
has been a marked decrease in the num-
Der each year thereafter, until in 1887
the number of sheep in the whole state
was only 271,2 During the same
period other stock increased as follows:
Cattle from 6S6,1OO in 1867 to
2,741,S75 in 1881; horses from
St3.593 to S59,Sl5; mules from
1927 to 4l.255; hogs from 776,412 to
1852, 353. Thus while the protected
sheep of the state have decreased nearly
million and half to less than three
hundred thousand the unprotected
cattle, horses. mules and hogs have cor
respondingly increased. Sooner or later
the manufacturer of wooden goods will
learn what the wool growers have
already learned, that the wool business
thriVes better under low tariff rates than
high. The proof of this fact may be
found in the price of wool in this cOun-
try in past years. the largest average
prices being paid during the low tariff.
The interests of the consumers, the
manufacturers and the wool growers are
all identical gall would be benefited by
the admission of imported wool free of
duty. If the manufacturer should
have free access TO the worlds market
for coarse woods he would be able to use
larger quantities of homegrown wool,
and probably pay better prices for it.
Why should sheep husbandry be
looked upon in the light of a national
pauper, anyway, and be made depend
ent on bounty for existence? What
reason is there that sheep husbandry
should be protected to the exclusion of
all other agricultural industries? The
reasons are all against it. Protection at
best is a species of knavery. 1t is only
a method for keeping up failing bust
ness at other peoples expense. Con-
greSS can't legiSlate property into exist
ence. The best it can do in enacting
protective legislation is to provide that
money shall be taken out of one
mans pocket and be put into
anOther's. That is all the wool
tariff does. 1t has been eonclu-
Sively shown that high tariff does not
favor the conditions for wool growing.
The sheep raiSers are not benefited by
it. If the tariff of 1867 were restored it
might possibly give temporary stimu-
luS to wool growing that would be
equally perniciOuS in its effects to what
1t was prior to 1867. Too many farmers
would be encouraged TO go into the bust
ness, and at the end of two or three
years at the most the market would be
glutted. Then another collapse would
come, and the farmer who had his
money invested in sheep would
be bankrupted. In this connection
we are impressed by an article
recently contributed to the Western
Rural by n. 3. WILKINSON, of La
INQUIRE, Oak, who says in conclusion:
"What farmer is there who does not
know that for the last three years wheat
growing has not paid? Now, since
there is greater supply of wheat grown
In the United States than can possibly
by consumed in them, of course an i'm
port duty Oh this cereal would be of no
material benefit to those engaged in the
industry; but, since they cannot grow
1t except at loss, and since this loss
cannot be made up to them by duty,
as the wOol-grOwer hopes to have his
loss made up to him, it seems to me
plain that the proper thing for congress
to do is to ascertain the number of BUSH
els of wheat each individual farmer
has grown for the last three years, COM
pute his loss, and write him check Oh
the national treasury for the amount"
The Dakota or Minnesota wheat grower
is just as good as the Ohio wool grower.
and as long as the government is in the
business of making good the losses of
people engaged in various occupations.
why shouldn't the wheat grower have
an equal chance with the wool grower?