The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-02-03

or TO the country; for the wealth OF r
c)un:ry cannot be judged by Il Q
number OF sneep 1T owns. Quite un-
conscious of the point he gives US N
this fact, Mi. Thomi son writes that
This decrease has all been in the
eastern and southern States. where the
| sheep are kept in small hocks " 1t
seems to me that the following prices
OF foreign wool show that American
growers in general, and Utah growers
in particular, need Tot fear foreign
competition even if the tariff should be
| abolished:
| Buenos Ayres wool, IA cents per
pound at the place of export; Peru
mlddling quality, p cents; Cape OF
Good Hope, "a cents; Australian
| post Philip average place, "a cents.
| Utah raw wool sells to-day at Is
cents. SO that, unless some process is
| discovered by which foreigners can
afford to sell wool at .nts per pound
| IN the United States markets, which
thay now eel at several times that price
in their own country. there is no danger
threatening wool-growers in the tariff
reduction. Hence. the price would not,
under free wool be cents pound, as
| Mr.. Thompson thinks; and there are
reasons for supposing that IL would
command even higher price than 1T
does at the present time.
Finally, 10 sulace Mr. thompson. who
fears that I'VE will pay SIP 0O0.0 to
other countries. where it will be lost so
far as the United States are concerned. 7"
quote the following from the great
French economist, ]. B. Say:
suppose dealer 10 consIgn to
foreign country $40 600 for the purchase
OF cotton; when his elton arrives, he
possesses $40 000 in cotton instead of
specie, putting his profit out OF the
question for the moment. Has any
body lost this money? Certainly not.
Gold and silver are like Ill. the other
substances that in the aggregate COM
pose national wealth; aud any excess
depresses their price i'll proportion and
induces their export. If the supply OF
the precious metals in the country be
more than suffi sieut for the wants of the
country, they are filter objects of ex-
port than any other commodities.
should any one maintain that the
vantage OF producing at home
counteroalances the haru> hip OF pay
ing dearer for almost every article; tnat
oar own capital and lator are engaged
Ii 'hea production, and the profits
pocketsd by our fellow citizens; my
answer is that the foreign commodities
which we might import are not to be
had gratis. We must purchase them
with values of home production, which
nave given equal employment 10 our
labor aud industry; for products gre
always bought ultimately with pro-
dncts. 1t is most for our advantage 10
employ our productive power, not i'll
those branches in which foreigners
excel us, butin those in which we excel
them.
What would the world say, if at the
door OF every house, an import duty
were laid upon coats and shoes for the
laudaOle purpose of compelling the
inmates to make them for themselves?
same. only carried to ridiculous ex-
IRENE.
who, then, are the classes of the
community so impOrtunate for pro-
hibitions or heavy import duties? The
producers of the particular commodity
that applies for protection from COM
petition. The public interest is their
plea; but self-interest il evidently their
object. Well, say these gentry, are
:hey not the same thing? are not our
gains national gains? Ky no means,
whatever profit is acquired in this way
is SO much taken out of the pockets of
neighbor and fellow citizen: and it
will be found that the loss OF the con-
sumner exceeds the gain OF the monopO-
list" But private interest is alert and
watchful, while the public good Is less
cared Tor and often misunderstood;
and for this reason, the protective
system has as many partiZans as OPP
ponents.