Waterbury evening Democrat., 1889-08-28

 crease of over 14,5OO, 900 pounds of cleaned wool, equal to over 4O,OOO,OOO pounds of greasy wool, in the last three years. In the light of such a showing, asks MT Bleakie, which is in a line with what has been for many years past going on in wool raising east of the Mississippi, why longer continue a tax which shuts out foreign wool, lessens the production of domestic wool, and simply puts a premium on the manufac- ture of shoddy and cotton? This is, and will continue to be, the result until we can draw from the wool markets of the
 world the supply needed to make the
 better goods which are now imported.
 It has sometimes been claimed that the slight reduction (about 20 per cent) in the tariff on wool in 1883 is responsi- ble for decrease i'll production since.
 This, however, MT Bleakie refutes by statistics showing that decline was taking place before that time, that neither increase in production or in price responded to the decrease in tax. But in another way the same fact is apparent. If a high tax stimulated production of wool, and consequently increase of l sheep, the number of that animal should predominate over that of unprotected animals in the same country. and over the number of the same animal i'll coun- tries where they are not so protected. ' In 1882, after the excessively high tariff on wool of 1867 had been in unrestricted operation for fifteen years, the number of sheep ill the United States was 36, GOO ,OOO, while the unprotected sheep in
 Russia numbered G4,0OO,O00; those of
 the Argentine Republic nprot ected, ! were 67, ,OOO ,OOO, and those sof Australia (unprotected) S0,0O0,O Even the un- protected sheep in Great Britain, that
 country so small in area and so great in population, numbered 2S,0OO,0OO. And at this time, when the tariff protected sheep of the United States numbered 36, ,OOO, ,0O0, the unprotected cattle here numbered 9.500, ,OO0, to 29,0OO, ,0OO in Russia, 17 GOO, ,00O in the Argentine Re. public and S,0OO,0OO in Australia. So l little does legislation control the laws of 1 nature or the influences of climate and 1 natural selection.
 The removal of the tax on wool would benefit alike the wool grower and the woolen manufacturer. It would benefit ] the grower because it would stimulate e l the domestic production of the coarse1
 grades which are indigenous to oul 1 climate and which could be mixed ! with the finer grades grown in other countries: and the manufacturer be-
 cause it would enable him to secure his l raw materials cheaper than he is now able to get them. And the demand l that is going up in many quarters, now 1 that politics are not at stake, for free wool is an encouraging indication l that congress will be forced at no dis
 tant date to grant this boon. In free
 wool lies the greatest hope of our New England woolen manufacturers, just a,
 in free iron and free coal lies the hop.
 that the iron mills of this section tha,
 are now lying idle will again be started
 up, giving employment to our labor ant
 bringing prosperity to all.
 l Give us free wool, or a tax on the ar ticle so low that it will not be an incu
 bus on all who have to do with tn,
 growing or manufacture of the article.