The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-02-26

It is the same in the case of buyiD,
our wool abroad; the money is rarely
sent. Moth 1 wish it thought tina
this fact is of any advantage to the
country; but it is consolation tC
those who think the country is losing
by sending out its money. Unless. how
ever, the United States did actually ex
port some amount of money each year
that article would quickly depreciate in
value; because the immense yield OF
precious metals from our mines would
soon initiate and depreciate our cur
rency if we Kept it all at home. Gold
and silver are two leading products OF
the United States, and to destroy our
foreign market for these products,
would be to deprive ourselves of the
very valuable of these articles.
Suppose, finally, that the wool men
can do nothing else than drive sheep
but that our wool merchants, induced
by larger profits, still buy abroad. The
wool men lose, bat the merchants gain ;
and the country may do either. depend
| ing on the relative amounts Of this loss
and gain. 70 be more special, if the
wool growers of Utah depend upon the
| 10 cents extra IT, people pay for each
1 pOuAu Va NOOI lls 4hOmp oOh 90
| serts). and if they =, EAR only 1873 per
cent. on their wool, which sells tor Is
cents pound, then the sooner the wool
| industry is abolished the better. We
ought to pay the wool growers cents q
pound on the wool we use, if they will
only quit growing wool; then they
would make as much as they do now,
and we should get twice as much wool.
Mr.. Thompson cannot comprehend
any difference between money &C
cumulating in the National Treas
ury and money sent abroad to
buy goods. The following may aid him
in discovering some of the differences:
| In the first case we get no return or
profit on our money; in the second, we
get back the full value of our money
with interes: added. In the first case
the money is hopelessly locked up for
an indefinite period; in the second, the
money will immediate ly return. If we
have any products to offer for it. In
the first case, the money is withdrawn
from circulation; in the second case, 1t
Is not. In the first case, the money is
| b idly carried into the vaults; in the
second case, the money itself is gener
| ally not sent at all, bills Of exchange,
| sight drafts, and other negotis bic
papers being sent instead. In the first
| case we pay the money only because we
have to; in the second, because it
makes US richer to do so.
When 8 man buys thousand sheep.
he Is not thousand sheep richer by
the occurrence. Perhaps he has sold
his farm to buy the sheep,
stead of his farm. He may
| or may not. be any richer by his ven
| ture So when he sells his sheep and
| again enters farming or some other
business. he is not necessarily either
richer or poorer from this fact. Now.
Mr.. Thompson's article showed that in
the southern and eastern States sheep
| are decreasing in numbers; and l say
that this fact alone does not prove that
| the men who are selling their sheep
! have lost anything.
| If men continue in these States to
J sell out their sheep and bay cattle an0
horses, is it not because the latter pay
| better?
| Mr.. Thompson says "the small re-
duction il the tariff in 1888 has reduced
| our sheep 5000 coo in three years" and
to take the tariff off wool "means the
total destruction of the wool industry
of the United States.n Let us see. In
1867, before the present tariff law was
enacted, the number OF sheep in the
United States was 80 3S5, 600; in 1887 il
was 50, 804 900. After ten years of pro-
lection there were fewer sheep in the
/ United States than when the protecting
tariff was enacted. If Mr.. Thompson
claims that the recent decline is due to
the slight modification of the tariff in
1888. claim that the above decline is
due to the enactment of the high tariff
law. and with equal right 1 claim the
same thing tor the following:
Ohio had, in February, 1867, { ,159, 900
sheep: in February, 1869. she had
q OF ,OCO; in January, 1877, she had
1906 60 80; in January. 1882. she had
4 95l 900.
J Michigan, in 1865, had 3.473, 000l in
| 1882 she had 1920, 900.
Pennsylvania, in 1866, had 3 $50, 900 /;
in 1882 she had 1 ,7S5, 600.
"New York in 1865 had 5,117 900; in
1882 she had 1,732 0OO."
A similar decrease occurred in Indi-
ana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Iowa. The
total number of sheep in all these
States in 1867 was 29.s79,0 900; in 1882,
after about fourteen years of protec
ton, it was IA 761 900. (Hazard).
It was shown in my second
article that there is no neces-
sary connection between the price
of wool and the tariff; and so far as
statistics alone can indicate, it appears
| that in the eastern States there is no
necessary relation between the number
of sheep and tina rate of the tariff. How.
ever, 1 attach no great Importance to
the above statistics; they show that
sheep-raising as en- industry continu-
ally migrates to places where land is
very cheap, and it will doubtless con-
tinue to do 80. The cry of sheep men
shows that they lament the fact that our
land is becoming valuable, and is being
occupied by industrious citizens. What a
sheep-growers' paradise Utah would be-
come if she had no fertile land, and
how great our prosperity would be if the
land would produce only that semi
desert product, low grade wooll Yet
these and numerous similar PROPOSE
tons follow in the wake of the enc that
the country grows poor by the peoples
leaving the sheep industry for other