New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-01-14
81 HAIR OF THE DOGD

From 1859 to 1882 the quantity OF wool
produced in this country, if the census Of 1860
is accepted, increased nearly fivcfold, from
6O,OOO,OOO to 20O,OOO,OOO pounds. In
1860 the production was less than two pounds
for each inhabitant; in 1852 it was ga pounds
for each inhabtant. Nothing can be clearer
than that wool-growing was stimulated greatly,
and yet the price averaged according to
NIauger g. Avery's tables. 4S.4 cents per pound
in 1859 and 1860, against 41.5 cents in 1881
and 1882. There is no paradox or bepuzzle-
mcnt about this; without making wool cost
more than before and thus without making
clothes fabricated from the wool cost more,
the growers were so far encouraged that they
produced vastly more wool the manufacture
was so stimulated that it produced goods worth
about $3.50, 100000 in 1882. against SSl ,OOO,-
600 in 1860; and meanwhile the value OF
woollcn goods imported for consumption IN
creased from S37 ,936,9i5 in 1860 to S42.-
552,45 in the fiscal year lSS3-relatively to
population a great decrease. In 1860 the
woolen goods imported averaged 81 20 for
each inhabitant; in 1888 they averaged only
II cents for each inhabitant Yet in 1860 the
value of goods produced by home manufacture
averaged So 81 for each inhabitant. and in
1882 the value averaged s. % for each IN
habitant,
Is it possible for any Free Trader to deny
that this is the record of grand and bencficcnt
development? With wool actually cheaper
than in 1860. because its production has been
encouraged and increased from 2 to ga pounds
per capita, and with goods actually cheaper
than in 1850, because their production had
been stimulated from 50 81 to So % for each
inhabitant. there was also the magnificent pros
perity Of all industries which enabled tho
people to consume more than SIS So worth Of
domestic and foreign woOllcn goods in 1882,
against only S3 II worth of more costly
woolcn goods before the protective tariff was
enacted.
Now what is the matter? In 1883 free
trade chatter SO impressed some Representa-
tivcs that few Republicans voted with Demo-
Gratis to reduce the duties both on wool and on
woolens. The reduction was not great in
deed it was ridiculcd at the time by Democratic
journals as a bcggarly and contemplate change
not worth making. But it was quite large
enough to do harm. The quantity of wool
produced in 1886 was 100000 pounds less
than in 1882, according to the Agricultural
Bureaus reports. and Judging from the subse-
qucnt reduction of more than 10 per cent in the
number Of sheep, the yield Of wool has prob
ably declined more than 10 per cent below the
clip Of 1882. But the imports have increased
from 100000 pounds in 1882 SO to 1l4,-
100000 pounds actually taken for consump-
ton during the fiscal year lSS6S7 an increase
Of about l15 per cent in four years. The
imports of woollen goods have also increased,
and the manufacture has just closed " the most
unsatisfactory year it ever experienced" non
partisan trade authority declares.
President Cleveland appears to believe that,
when a man rises with headache in conse-
uucnce of too much wine the night before. the
sensible remedy is to 90 off and get drunk.
That is his way of curing the prostration of
the wool growing and wool manufacturing in
dustrics. Because the manufacturer got wool
last year II cents per pound cheaper than
under the last revenue tariff he proposes to
take off the duty which "makes wool dcarcr."
Because hundreds of woollen mills arc closed
already by a small reduction of duty he pro-
noses to cut down the duty far more, in order
to relieve them from Oppressive taxation"