Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1888-02-09
WOOL HUSBANDRY.
FACTS FOR ALL WHO WEAR
wOOLEN CLOTHING.
And Figures for WooI-Growers on
Production and Prices,

Production and Prices.
| [From an elaborate paper by Rowland Hazard, who
has spent years In the study Of the theory and
practice Of Tariff on Wool, as read before the
washington County tR. ~ Agricultural Society,
Of which he was President.
There is widespread belief that the ques-
tion, "Does protective tariff benefit the
wool-growers?" must be answered in the af-
firmative. So general is this belief that
there is strong prejudice against any
examination of the subject. The ordinary
answer to the question is that the tariff on
wool is for the protection of the American
wool-grower against the ruinous competiti on
of free foreign wool. OF course it is a
benefit. Take off the tariff and we could not
grow wool in the United States?"
Now, it is to be observed that this answer
is exceedingly general in its character. It
gives no statistics to show how the tariff has
actually produced the good effects it claims
1t relies, apparently, on the single word,
protection" and on the simple and child :
like faith of the wool-growers that they are
protected because the tariff under which
they are struggling is called pro tective
tariff.
Isthis answer satisfactory? Would it not
be more satisfactory, after our long expert
ence with high protective" tariff, to have
pointed out the small beginnings of sheep
htsbandry, the growth of the flock under the
fostering care of the tariff, the incr easing
prosperity of wool-growers and the high
price they obtained for their woos?
But, strange to say, no tariff orator has
ever given point to his argument by the
recital of such statistics. The simple fact is
that they cannot be cited with truth; they do
not exist
If such benefits have not followed the
enactment of high'tariffs, what results have
followed? In all soberness and candor let
us examine this subject. Let us not be be-
guiled by artful politicians, who simply re-
gard the matter as bait to catch votes.
But the time is coming, if it has not already
come, when the intelligent wool-growers of
this great country can no longer be ed by
such senseless cry. They will examine
this question in the light of experience and
reason, and they will decide the case accord
ing to its merits. Such an examination n and
such decision the friends of tariff reform
most earnestly desire.
The first striking fact to notice about the
high tariff on wool is that the results aimed
at by its projectors have failed to be realized.
The tariff of 1867 was passed to encourage
wool growing and to foster wool manufatur-
ing. The terms were settled at convention
of wool l-growers5 and'wool manufacturers
1t was expected to raise the price of wool
and the price of goods, and it was particular
ly expected to increase the growth of wool.
None of these results followed the enact
ment of this tariff. On the contrary, direct
ly after the passage of the tariff of 1867 there
was a large falling off in the wool product,
especially in border States east of the Mississ
ippi river, which up to that time had been
the great wool producing States.
The following table shows in the last
column the total wool clip of the United
from 1866 to 1877, inclusive. The second
column shows the clip of the older States,
separated from that of California, Texas, the
Southern States and the Territories. This
separation is not absolutely complete, as
some tub and some pulled wool from the
new wool producing sections have been
added to the product of the older States.
But whatever error there is makes the wool
product of the older States appear larger
than it actually was: