Mexico weekly ledger., 1888-03-22


that the East received all the bene-
fits growing out of the Protective
tariff system and the West paid the
Granting that this may
have been true to some extent,
what have these reformers to offer
in defence of a measure which takes
from the West the few benefits now
derived from the present tariff
During the fiscal year ending
June 80, 1866, the United States
imported, in round numbers, III
100000 pounds of wool, more than
81 per cent. of the amount required
for home consumption. In 1867
the tariff was SO changed as to af-
ford adequate protection to domes-
tic wool. After seventeen years of
such protection and when the
growing population had increased
the demand to 5000, 600 pounds,
there were imported but 70, 575,0 600
pounds or only 10 per cent. of the
amount required for home con-
sumption.
The act of 1888 reduced the
tariff on the grade of wool which
comes in competition to Missouri
wool about 2 IL cents per pound.
The effect of this reduction was to
increase the importations- During
the year ending June 80, 1887 there
was imported IA, 900 pounds,
or 20 per cent. of the amount re-
quired for home consumption. At
the same time the number of sheep
in this country decreased nearly
5000, 600. The number of sheep
in Missouri in 1883 was 1,500, 600,
and in 1887 there were but 1852, 600
in the State. In 1888 the tariff on
the grade foreign wool coming into
competition to average Missouri
was about II IL cents per pound
and in 1887 the duty on the same
goods was 10 cents per pound.
Now if a reduction of 2 IL cents
per pound had such an effect on the
Wool-growing interest of the coun-
try, what can be expected if wool
is placed on the free list? IfSouth
America, Australia and other
foreign countries now overstock
our market and pay a duty ranging
from 2 IL cents to 30 cents per
pound. what must the wool-grow-
ers expect if all foreign wool is adj
mitted free? It simply means that
wool-growing on land worth $40 to
$50 per. acre will not pay and Mis-
souri, sheep-raisers must quit the
business or move out. If Missouri
wool-growers cannot make sheep
pay they must try something else.
Very many viii increase their
herds. But there are already too
many cattle and any increase IN the
supply means still lower prices.
Missouri's 1882, 600 sheep now
CONSUME as much grass and grain
as would 2OO, 600 cattle.
Wipe out the sheep, increase
Missouri's cattle supply by 100000
and other States in a like proper
ton, then is the prospect f~iattering
to the cattle men? Or, ifyou please,
let the capital, the products of the
soil and the labor represented by
the sheep industry be divided
among all classes of farmers and
stock-growers, and you will in
crease the competition in every
line. Thus, If the wool-growers
are made to suffer by tariff legIs1a'
ton, it will react upon tie entire
agricultural interests. Are thu
wool-growers expect to submit
without a protest to be used as thu
"cat's paw to haul the" tariff re
form "chestnut out of the ire?".
The wool-groWers r willing tt
stand their share of the necessary
reduction in the tariff to cut off th'
surplus revenue; but they vii
protest against unjust measure
which means ruin to their business
All they ask is fair play. The,
say to the farmer, laborer, me
chanic, merchant and capitalist Q
the West, stand by the protected
interests of the West and compe
the manufacturer of the East ant
the sugar producer Of the South T
bear their just proportion of tn
burdens incident to tariff reform
Nv. g. HATHAWAY.