Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-01-04
SHEEP HUSBANDRY
DISCUSSED seroRE rHsHousE WAYS
AND MEANS COMMITTEE.
An Tnseressinx Tiis with witness Who
owns Large Ranch In
Texas.


VI
OF the Rocky Mountain country.
Mr.. Shepherd. a wool-growcr Of Texas.
was the next witness. lie said that the
subject assigned 90 him by the President
OF the National Wool Growers Association
was th6 ability of the United States TO
raise al the carpet-wooi consumed IN the
country. and he read paper TO prove that
with sufficient protection IL could be done.
He gave figures TO show that in Texas 1t
costs from IL TO Is cents pound ~ pro-
duce fine wool. and iteannot be laid down
ia Boston at less thanf9 cents Per pound,
while the Australian wool could be laid
down there Of there was no duty ON IT. at
cents per pound.
Mr.. Carlisle: How many sheep hayeyou!
Witness About IL, 900.
Mr.. Carlisle: How much land do you use!
Witness Eighty thousand acres.
Mr. Carlisle: What is the land worth per
acrcs
witness: The Government land is worth
81 per acre.
Mr.. Carlisle: How many acres are re-
quired for the support OF one sheepI
Witness: About fivNcres.
Mr. Carlisle: You have set out quite {.
number OF advantages which your part OF
fhc country possesses for the production of
carpet-wool, and yet you say that nctwith-
standing these advantages you cannot pro-
duce il without adequate protection. What
fectionY
Witness: Enough 10 raise tho price of
carpet-wool TO the price Of fine wool.
Mr.. Carlisle Is il your idea that the Gov
eminent should impose duty that would
enable YOU TO have az much profit on car
pet-wOOl as on fine wooll
Witness: | would like the same duty ON
every pound of wool.
Mr.. Carlisle: What do you mean by the
same duty?
Witness: ] mean that one class of wool
should pay the same duty as another class.
Mr.. Carlisle: You have not told us the
rate OF duty you require.
Witness / leave that 70 tho better Juog-
ment of the committee.
Mr.. Carlisle: What your opinion?
Witness: would have the same duty on
all wool, say ten cents per pound.
Mr.. Gear: What would have been the ef-
feet on the wool-growing business in Texas
# the Mills bill had gone into effect!
Witness: We would all have gone out OF
The business, ] reckon.
Mr.. Mills put series OF questions de-
signed TO make the witness admit that ten
cents per pound duty on wool was for the
protection of capital. not for labor. which
was being robbed, he said, 10 that extent.
The witness replied with much warmth
that he would like 20 rob, not the poor
man. but rich man, such as Congressman
and Senators. who were robbing the sheep
raisers by not giving them their duties. He
declared that he was a Democrat nall but
free trade. He could not stand that. He
had voted for President Cleveland the first
time, and would have voted for him
second time if hc had not sought to slaugh-
ter the sheep-raisers for the sake of free
trade.
Mr.. Breckenridge: You are q revenue
Democrat
Witness: do not know what you may
call me. / have not language to expressit.
Mr. Bayne; Are the farmers and wool
growers Of Texas generally in favor oil pro-
tectiony
Witness; cannot speak for the farm
crs. | know that the wOoi-growers are.
Mr.. Bayne: without regard to party?
Witness: We are going 10 drop the oues-
tiOn OF party.
Mr.. Chairman: You must be very dis
eliminating in regard TO the members.
There are some members from Texas whom
we want left with US. lLaughtor.l
Mr.. Mills: Did not you try q little Of that
philosophy the last campaign?
Witness: Not rs much as | wish we had
done. There was another feature III that
campaign prohibition - which elected
some gentlemen. =.
Mr. Breckenridge: is the Democracy of
Texas strongly in favor of prohibition.
Witness No, sir. | an sorry to say that
the Democracy of Texas is in favor of free
whiskoy. lLaughter.l am Prohibition
ist myself. We did not try TO centralize
the wool interest in the last campaign, but
the next time we Will try.
Hon. William Lawrence, of Ohio, said
that he was one of the committee APP
pointed by the National NOol-Growers'
Association ct its recent convention In
Washington TO make some remarks rs to
the legislation which the wooi-growers
generally believed was required by sound
public policy and justice. II was his duty,
he said, to address the committee on two
subjects. the first being proper duty on
carpet wool and the second being the pro-
visions of the law necessary 10 secure an
honest administration of the tariff laws.
1t was safe to say that the wool-growers
generally believed that a sound policy re-
Quired the imposition OF such a duty on
the so-called carpet-wool as would IN due
time enable the American wOol-growers to
produce all the oaTpct-wOol required for
consumption in the United States. shut
ting ont foreign importations and giving TO
the American wool-grower the privilege Of
supplying all the carpet-woOl required tor
consumption here. Either the protective
policy should be abandoned and the policy
of free trade adopted or else the protective
policy should te mede efiectual, so as to
give the whole Americaa market to home
producers.
Mr.. McMillin: What would we then do
for revenuef Would you levy additional
taxes!
Witness: would give the American
producer the privilege of supplying every
thing that can be supplied in sufficient
quantities 10 meet all demands at reason-
able prices. II we cannot derive sutf-
cient revenue from customs We have the
whiskoy tax. tobacco tax. and other inter
nal-reyenue taxes to the amount of $780,
600 600 yearly.
In q further discussion with the men,
bers of the committee as to the effect of
the policy outlined by himself. Mr.. Law
renee admitted that IL necessary TO save
the protective system he would be willing
TO see q tax put upon tea and coffee and
upon every commodity that we cannot
produce sufficiently 10 supply the United
States, and would tax whisBey dollar
and half Il gallon.
John L. Rich. Of Michigan. representing
the MICHIGAN Merino Sheep Association,
desired that there should be- no reduction
on the duty on wool; that there should be
q substantial protection. and that the
frauds IN the lmportations of wool shall be
prevented.
Mr.. James Dobson. of Philadelphia,
carpet manufacturer. addressed the COM
mittee AZ some length. criticising what he
called a violent tiradoh which Mr.. Law
renee had INDUCED in against the carpet
manufacturers aud denying the correctness
Of many of his statements. The carpet
manufacturers, he said, asked nothing
more than to be pat on the same level with
the woollen-cloth manufacturers.
Mr. Dobson argued that the wool-grow-
ers Of the United States would not and
could not produce the quantity of carpet
wool used in that industry because where
they received $3.50 for the fleece of fine
wool sheep they would not receive % cents
for that Of coarse-wool sheep.
Mr. William Whitman. of Boston. presi-
dent OF the National Association of Wool
Manufacturers. next addressed the CON-
mlttoe. presenting memorial and reSolu-
tons adopted by that association. The
association took tho position, he said, not
TO attempt 10 FIX the duty on wool. but to
leave that 70 the committee without re-
mark or comment He would say. how
ever, that the prevailing sentiment among
ths manufacturers connected with the
organization was preference for the
maintenance OF existing duties and that
the preser rates should not be increased.