New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-09-10
WOOL AND WOOLLENS.

The ONO WOOl-RIONVio Vuh P''"'''J' ~i'N ~
is well that they do. The protection OF nome
industry cannot be maintained without 1alr
and frank understanding among its advocates.
II the manufacturers of woollen cloths, worst
eds carnets and knit goods fancy that duties
ON manufactured products can be maintained,
hut duties on wool can be reduced or removed,
+bev need 70 be undeceved and the sooner the
better In this matter the wool-growers of
Ohio only express the feeling which will govern
tho votes of vOoI-grOwers in every part Of the
countrv. They serve notice that reduction or
romoval Of duties on raw wool will mean re-
duction or removal of duties on manufactured
products Of wool and they are perfectly Iusti-
lied in that position.
There is no reason whatever for encouraging
or protecting the manufacture OF wool rather
than the growers Of wool. Each employs
American labor. Each engages American cap
ital. But the number of voters interested in
the production of wool is much greater than
the number interested in the production Of
cloth. To say nothing Of the well known fact
that nearly half of the hands employed in
woollen manufacture are women and children.
he whole number so employed in 1880 was
only SO, 600, while at least quarter of the
farmers in the country, or about 100000,
produce wool and are interested in the mainte-
nance Of duties on wool The manufacture
does not number one voter for every hand
employed. But the owners of wool-growing
farms have votes and so have their sons and
their hired labOrers.
II is the weakness Of the Woollen NIanufact-
mers' Association that it has always been large
~ Influenced by the carpet manufacturers,
many of whom think free wool would be
blessing. The cloth producers and the man
ufacturerS Of worSteds fiannels and knit goods
are not as a rule. inclined to sacrifice the adj
yantages of the tariff. They realize that un-
restrained competition with foreign manufact-
uIes would be disastrous to them unless they
could succeed in reducing the wages of labor
to the European level But any attempt to
reduce wages in woollen manufacture would
excite the opposition of all the voters who
are interested in that industry, as an attempt
to cut off the duty on wool would meet the
opposition Of all wool growing farmers.
Protection cannot be politically maintained
nor logically justified as partial or one-sded
affair. If it does not benefit American labor
as a whole it will be voted down. If it helps
only small minority, failing to benefit the
farmers and the larger part of the manufact-
uring operatives it will be defeated. Those
who talk about free wool, therefore, may as
well face the fact that free goods will come
before free wool, because the wool producers
have at least ten votes for every vote inter
eStcd in the manufacture. 1t would be we'll
not to lose sight Of this overwhelming pre-
pOnderance of the farming vote. The wool
growers have as much right to be considered
in any taking Of the tariff as any other class
Of citizens. But whether they have the right
or not, they certainly have the votes to make
their wishes respected.
The wool duty is the keystone Of the tariff
Iron and steel duties, cotton duties, and many
others which have built up the most thriving
American industries would go down if the
duties on wool should be abandoned. This
fact needs to be kept in mind when carpet
manufacturers who are realizing comfortable
profits from the tariff as ii stands put in their
plea for free wool. Not only the wool growers
will vote against them, but the iron miners.
the producers of pig-iron. the manufacturers
Of cotton in all forms, and others whose indus
tries are protected All American labor must
be defended, or none will be. Free wool means
free goods of all sorts and no protection for
American labor.