Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1888-05-17
THE NORTHWEST
THE WOOL TARIFF.
How the Farmer and Wageworker
are Taxed to Make the Rich
Richer.

arc ldAOu W NAohO WIZ AhASh
Richer.
Patrick S. O'Rourke, in the Fort
Wayne Journal, makes the following
remarks for the benefit of the protec-
tionists:
'tIt has ever been the practice for the
shrewd and cunning to overreach the
plain and industrious, who have
neither the practical experience of the
: worlds business cunning, nor the op-
portunity of acquiring it. And it was
by a cunning trick that the toiling
farmer was duped into the belief that a
tariff on wool would make his fortune.
In 1861, owing to the war, a general
tariff act was passed, but wool was left
out of the protected list. The farmer
was paying an increased price for al
most every article he purchased, and
hence he began to talk and act, like a
tariff refOrmer, and did not believe in
protection. The talk of the farmers be-
gan to annoy the high tariff men, and
they looked about to find what could
be done to quiet the farmers, and if
possible to make them protectionists.
In 1867, six years after the passage of
the general tariff act, Congress placed
wool on the list of protected articles
What was the result?
Previous to the wool tariff act of 1867
the number of sheep in each of the
named states was as follows:
Ohio, 7,l59,177; Michigan, 4,02S, ,767;
Pennsylvania, 3,456, ,56S; New York, s.
373,005; Indiana, $685. $40; Illinois, e.
764072; Wisconsin, 1864, 1928; Iowa. g.
1893, 9,429; making total of 29,S79.222
sheep in the eight states.
Thirteen years afterwards, in 1880,
the same states contained sheep as fol-
lows: Ohio, ,902, 1856; Michigan, $780,
369; Pennsylvania, 1,776, ,598; New York,
1,715,190; Indiana, l 1,100,5l1; Illinois, l.
037,073; Wisconsin, 1885, ,907; Iowa,
455,379; or total of IA, ,513, 500 sheep, q
falling off of nearlf one-half the number
of sheep in thirteen years of wool pro-
lection.
Why did the number of sheep de-
crease in the states named after the
enactment of q law, alleged to be for the
benefit of sheep owners? 1t is in these
states that most of the cry about protec-
ton on wool is heard, and yet results
prove that the industry has been injur-
ed by protection. A little more pro-
lection care of the wool industry would
ruin it east of the Mississippi, and drive
the whole business of sheep raising and
wool culture to the states and territories
west of that river where the climate is
mild and lands are cheap.
The tariff on wool created monopo-
ly, and as successful monopolies can
only be conducted on large scale,
capitalists formed companies and
sought out the cheap lands best adapt
ed to sheep raising. Over-production
was the result, the market was glutted,
and the price of wool fell dowon to
what it had been before, when wool
was on the free list.
The result was the decline of the wool
industry from New York to Wisconsin,
and strange rs it may seem, taking in a
section of country which produces the
best wool for general purposes ofany
ether portion of the world. But the
business prospered on the large ranches
Of the west, for the reason that an in
dustry conducted on large scale can
be made profitable, when the smaller
enes would be crushed, and hence it is
that the sheep ranch owners of Texas,
New Mexico, Colordo, Oregon and
California were making annual profits
Of from thirty to seventy per cent. at u
time when the wool growers east of the
Mississippi were complaining of the
low price of that article. The tariff on
wool closed the hundreds of small
woolen mills, and that industry has
been concentrated in a few principal
centers, and like the wool growing in
dustry has become monopoly.
ghe average price of wool for series
ofyears has not been as high under the
policy of protection, as it had been
an1er free wool. The reason is that
the high price of wooden goods has re-
duced the consumption of wooden
clothing by the poor, and although the
duty checked the import of foreign
wools, yet the home article being large,