Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1888-08-23
Ohio Wool and its Relation to Tariff.

is right, and accordingly shall support him.
Ohio Wool and its Relation to Tariff
| The Republican papers assert that the Mill'
Bill will ruin the wool growing industry. Thii
is question in which the farmers of OhiC
are especially interested as in no other re-
spect does the tariff affect them more direct
ly than in its relation to wool growing. Nov
let us look at this question for a moment
honestly and fairly, and without regard tC
affiliations at ALI but let us deal with facts
and facts only. s#...
1t is undoubtedly fact that wool growing
is not so remunerative as it used to be, nor sc
remunerative as it ought to be. The prices
paid for wool this year are slightly below
those of even last year. The reduction being
from one to two cents per pound upon the
average. In certain sections farmers have
been imposed upon by buyers who claimed
that the Mills bill agitation had demoralized
the market, causing lower prices, with pros.
poets of their going to still lower figures
This "scare" caused some to dispose of theil
wool at figures below what they might other.
wise have obtained. Others who we're moi
easily frightened obtained figures quite up to
those realized last year. A quite prominent
wool buyer from Cleveland, says the Akron
Times, who has purchased large part of the
wool of Summit county this year, told us;
1.-THE agitation of the tariff question has
helped us some, and in fact we look most to
that than to the effect of the tariff bill itself.
Now, people don't known what effect the pro-
posed measure may have and their fear,
caused by the uncertainty, gives US an op-
portunity, to lower prices little
The tariff question is one far reaching in
its results and its exact operation can not be
accurately foretold in all instances, but we do
not believe that the tariff determines prices
of wool or any other commodity and believe
that the cry that the Mills bill will be de-
| trimental to wool growers is unjust and un-
true. We accept as a fact the statement that
the wool-growing industry at present is not
in very healthy condition, but there is no
proof that this state of affairs has been
caused by the tariff in any degree whatever.
Whatever may be the future of the wool
growing industry, its past is matter of his
tory and the facts concerning it are ready at
hand for consideration. Let US take
glance at few facts concerning wool in Ohio
in the past:
In 1865, two years before the wool tariff of
1867 was enacted, the average price of Merino
wool-Ohio XXX-sold at so cents in cur
rency, equivalent to 51.3 cents in coin.
In 1867 the tariff was enacted. Two years
later wool sold for 59.5 cents in coin.
In 1877, ten years later, it brought 41.6
cents in COMA decline of ten cents per
pound under the tariff. What caused that?
In 1867, when the tariff went into effect
there were in Ohio 7,555,507 sheep valued at
$2O360, 1902, producing 24,848,6A pounds of
wool which sold at $15,157, $3.50. Under the
tariff there was an immediate fall in these
figures and within three years the change
was very marked. In 1870 there was $685.
OPS sheep, valued at $8,41S,1SS, which pro-
duced 16, Ill, 421 pounds of wool, worth &c.
183,262. What caused this reduction all along
the line under the tariff? Was it due to the
tariff or did it result from the relation of
supply to demand?
But without any change in the tariff this
decline continued steadily and without in
| terruption. Ten years after the tariff enact
ment, in 1877, there were but 8, ,724,040 sheep
in Ohio, valued at $S,3S2,42 producing To-
TAI, 1904 pounds of wool worth but 81. 1876, ,523.
Now let US sum up the result of the first
ten years of tariff: The number of sheep de-
clined 1851, ,467, about 80 per cent. Their
value declined $11, ,977,S74, about GO per cent.
The amount of wool declined 8, 101, ,467, about
40 per cent. It's value declined $15, 163, 40,
about IS per cent. There has never been a
time since 1867, when wool sold for as high a
price as it did before the tariff enactment Of
| that year.
In 1889 the price of wool had reached 2t
cents per pound when the wool tariff was
slightly reduced. Since that time the average
price has ranged above that figure. Last
years average price in the Boston market
was 32 cents. This years will probably be
not far from 80 cents. These figures are fol-
"Ohio XXX, Merino WOOL" .r.
| These are the facts concerning the history
of wool in Ohio as we understand them; tht
figures are verified by those of the Secretary
of State and the State Board of Agriculture
and are given without being ''juggled with
at all and without any desire to give anything
but the honest facts without misrepresenta-
| tion. ,.... ,...
Now Just a word concerning the treatmen
of this question by the Republican press
They point to the fact that this years return
show a decrease in the number of Ohio sheep
in number of pounds and in value of shee
and wool, and claim that this state of affair
is due to the tariff agitationl While they la
this to the Mills bill they forgot to tell thei
readers that the same state OF affairs was ais
experienced last year, and the year before
and the year before that, and was also 81
: perienced under Republican rule, under tn
highest protective tariff ever enacted, Ion
before Roger O. Mills was heard of or th
Mills bill was formulated, or tariff reductio
was discussed or contemplated. Is this o
honest treatment of the subject2 EE
The leading Free Trade paper in th
, United States Is the Chicago Iri6an,
: 1t Is also the leading Republican pape