The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1888-05-02

not employ operatives, and II the opera
tives have no work they cannot consume
to any large extent. Thus, IN the face OF
the fact that we already have surplus IN
many lines of manufacture, II is proposed
to increase the number of mills and the
number OF operatives more than tyefold.
Was ever anything more absurd than TINS
home-market theory for our agricultural
products?
As to the wool question, that explained 1t.
self on its face. Under protection the price OF
wool has steadily fallen. But this decline was
scarcely to be attributed TO protection. 1t was
simply because wool can now be raised much
cheaper than in former times. In fact the wool
is somewhat of a side issue the meat being the
principal object. The United States, with
twenty years of protection. has about fourteen
head of sheep TO the square mile, while Ger
many, with free wool, has ninety-two head;
France, with free wool, 100 head, and the
United Kingdom, with free wool, 235 head 10
the square mile. The number of sheep III the
United Kingdom is s. per cent. of the popula-
ton, in France % per cent and in the United
States 70 per cent. Why this equality IN the
number OF sheep compared TO population,
and great inequality as TO area OF territory! 1t
must be that it requires about this proportion
TO raise the mutton consumed by the inhabi-
tants. In 1884 we had, in round numbers, 90
OOO,0O0 sheep; but in 1887 this number was re-
duced 10 44,000.000, not because there was no
demand for woOl-we imported large quantities
OF wool and even shoddy during these years
but because VIC had surpassed the number re-
CURED TO raise the mutton consumed by us.
In 1880 we exported over half million head,
not to produce wool, but for slaughter.
We consume annually 600OO0,0OO pounds OF
wool; this, at 10 cents, would cost S2400OOO0n
We can purchase foreign woods, and pay for
them III the products of labor, for one-half this
sum. Now, why make the people OF the
United States pay S100,O00,000 more for their
wool in order TO have il all produced at home?
Protectionists say, 10 build up home industries
and employ home laborl But this is just what
we are not doing by this policy. We have seen
how we have injured our cotton mills, our
wooden mills, and all of our industries manu-
featuring implements and machinery.
In countries where the profit is in raising
mutton the demand for mutton will control and
regulate the number of Sheep and by no sys-
TEN OF protection can the number of sheep be
increased above that point. In countries
where wool can be grown at comparatively
little cost and the profit 10 the shepherd is not
In Strengthening but in shearlng his sheep, there
the wool viii be grown to clothe the people in
the colder climates: and TO exclude the same
from our shores is not only destruction TO our
wooden mills, but it is a serious blow TO every
other industry and to every individual through
out the whole country, and TO none is 1t more
detrimental than to that great body of our peo-
pie who live by their hands.
Mr.. Bynum then referred to the condition Of
our wooden manufactures struggling for ex-
iStence-an unequal struggle, for the high
tariff is throttling them. Wool must be placed
on the free list, or they will have to succumb.
In concluding, Mr.. Bynum paid his respects TO
the pools and trusts, and declared the argu-
ment that we should increase duties in order TO
increase home industries and become indepen-
ent of other nations was no longer OF weight,
for, while the time probably has not arrived
when all strife between nations shall cease
and spears into pruning-hOols," yet we have
reached that period in the worlds history and
in the progress of the human race when it is no
longer necessary TO keep sentinels upon the
watch-tOwer to awaken the sleeping inhabit-
ants to defend the city against an armed foe
bent upon rapine and plumber.
No DEMOCRAT can afford to keep house
without TIE WEEKLY SENTINEL. How do