Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1890-10-18
WHY FARMERS AND SHEEP OWNERS
SHOULD SUSTAIN THE MCKINLEY
TARIFF BILL.
BY G. w. z. BLACK.

BY G. W. z. BLACK.
Probably no measure Of public impor- |
lance has ever been SO misunderstood or
so misrepresented as the Mckinley tariff
bill. The enemies of the Republican par
ty are constantly proclaiming that this
measure is one which is sure to result in
the destruction Of the best interests OF
the country, but they are careful to ad-
duce no facts or figures to substantiate
their unwarranted assertions.
The charge that this bill is one which
will increase the burdens of the people is
false in every particular. On the con-
trary it is one which will diminish their
burdens, and increase the prosperity of
the country. This bill places upon the
free list articles which in the last year
were valued at over one hundred and
nine millions of dollars, whilst the Mills
bill transferred to the free list articles OF
only twenty. three millions of dollars in
value. The effect of this large Republi-
can addition to the free list is to make
nearly fifty per cent. of the imports into
the United States entirely free of duty,
thus giving us the largest degree of free
dom in trade ever provided for by any
tariff act in this country. Prior to 1870
scarcely any articles were admitted free
of duty, and even under the low tariff
act of 1916 the articles imported free of
duty were only about twelve per cent,
and under the tariff of 1888 it was thirty
three per cent. Under the Mills bill the
free goods imported would have been
about forty per cent, while under the
Mckinley bill nearly fifty per cent. of all
the goods imported from abroad will be
absolutely free of duty. The low prices
which have prevailed for wheat and corn
during number of years past have caus-
ed many farmers to curtail the produc-
ton of these cereals and devote more at
| tention to sheep-raising and wool-produc-
ton. In view of this fact brief review
of the sheep and wool industry in Amer
| lea and its relation to our tariff laws
might not be without interest to the
farmers of the Second Congressional
| District.
In 1860, after fourteen years of - tariff
for revenue only,n the wool produced in
the United States amounted to sixty mil
lion pounds, whereas in the twenty four
wears following and under a protective
tariff enacted by the Republican party,
the production increased to three hun
bred and eight million pounds; and not
withstanding this great increase the price
had been steadily maintained. Under
the tariff reduction of 1888 the produc-
ton gradually declined until in 1889 it
had fallen to two hundred and sixty-tive
million pounds. In order to supply the
public demand, importations of foreign
wool steadily increased and rose from
seventy eight million pounds in 1854 to
one hundred and twenty-six million
pounds in 1889.
The quantity of wool of all grades, i'm
ported into this country during the past
year. is estimated at three hundred and
fifty million pounds, so that the home
: market, if preserved for American
farmers, would require about six hun
bred million pounds annually and con
sequently double the number of sheer
now kept on American farms.
Mr.. Cleveland was candid enough tc
say that it was sound policy to sacrifice
the small fiocks of sheep scattered
throughout the United States in order tc
secure cheaper wool from abroad, and IN
December, 1886, his Secretary of the
Treasury in his annual report, recon-
mended the immediate passage of an act
placing wool on the free list. The Mills
!
happily defeated by Republican senate
repealed the duty of 10 and ~ cents pei
pound and allowed foreign wool to enter
this country free.
The manifest injustice of bringing the
American farmer into competition with
foreign wool growers must be apparent
to every one. In Russia, Turkey, South
America and Australia the modes of liv-
ing are such as the American farmer and
laborer have never yet reached and we
hope never will reach. 1t may seem in
credible, but it is nevertheless true, that
in Italy sheep are cared for by men who
work for two cents per day and subsist
wholly upon black bread. In South
America conditions are somewhat differ
ent. and the owners of immense grazing
lands employ semi barbarians as laborers
and produce wool at 10 cents per pound,
Is it wise or is it good craftsmanship to
open our markets to those people and
thus destroy an industry of such vast
importance
1t has been demonstrated that sheep
raising can be made profitable in all, or
nearly all, the Southern States, and there
can be no doubt that with encouragement
the hill-sides of WestVirginia can be made
to swarm with sheep. thus producing
mutton for our home markets and wool
to clothe our own people. Sheep hus-
bandry is SO diversified in character that
even the high priced farming lands can
be made more productive and more profit
able by its adoption. If this industry is
properly encouraged the sixty millions of
dollars annually sent abroad for wool
and wooden goods will be kept at home,
thereby giving employment not only to a
large number of sheep raisers but to a
vast number of employees engaged in
manufactures, thus creating a home
market for the consumption of American
breadstuffs. To foster and encourage
our home markets is one of the essential
elements of the protective principle and
it holds good when applied to the wool
grower as well as to the grower of wheat.
English statesmen are the most astute in
the world. In order to render their
country independent of America in the
matter of bread they have spent vast
sums to encourage wheat growing in
India where the laborer works for ten
cents a day and boards himself. They
are now building railroads and canals in
India at such rate that by the year 1900
their facilities for getting wheat from
the interior to the seaboard will be so
great that England will be entirely indie
pendent of the American wheat grower.
If England deems it wise to spend vast
sums for the encouragement of wheat
growing in her colonies in order that she
NAV haoorna ipdonandauf of