The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1891-08-06
REMINISCENT.
The Wool Industry Ably
cussed.
Dis
An Apostate Makes Wool An Ex-
cuse.
That Wool Excuse VIII Not Pull Any
Wool over Any Intelligent Farmers
Eyee---Discussion OF Wool In General.
From the Naws-DpxooRAr, July 10, 1888.


Mr.. Horace G. Mcdowell, one Of the
most prosperous families In Stark county
and cashier of the Farmers Bank Of this
city, said 70 a Repository reporter today
~ have been q Cleveland Democrat, but
am such no longer. Free trade cannot
get my vote. / don't believe In free
wool. VI Repository, July z, 1888.
EEIToR NEWS. DEMOCRAT: zone bump
or at parting" Mr.. Mcdowell. Twas not
the only Democrat who was very much
surprised 70 hear that you had ever be-
longed to our party, and a gray-haired
Seventh ward Republican friend told me
that he had always claimed you as broth
er. But as you claim that you was q DEM
ocrat and that tried TO persuade you 70
tarry with US yet a little while longer, i
beg leave to offer few facts for you 70
take with you over into the high tariff,
free whiskey and dear clothes camp. i
offer them in the kindest spirit and with
the hope that you may yet be able TO see
the error Of your way and return TO the
house Of your friends before IL is eter-
nally too late.
You say YOU will not vote for Cleveland
because OF his message and the Mills bill.
You are q wool-grower-you and one out
ten Of your neighbors own fewer than
thirty-three sheep each. In response TO
the Presidents message the Mills bill
puts wool on the free list. For selfish
reasons you oppose this and will not vote
for Cleveland. Let us reason together
then In a selfish spirit and see where our
selfishness will lead us.
The prosperity Of the wool growing in
terest of this country must depend in
large measure upon the prosperity OF the
manufacturing interests. A large manu-
facturer of Connecticut testified before the
ways and means committee that the
wooden factories OF the United States,
taken on q whole, would not sell for
twenty-five cents on the dollar on their
original cost,n When the wool manufac-
lures are cut off by hostile tariff from
access to the source Of cheap supply which
are open to their foreign competitors they
connot expect either to command their
own market or to compete in other mar
kets. Mr.. John L. Hayes, secretary of the
wool manufacturers association, told the
committee of ways and means "that
neither our own country or any other in
the the world does or can produce to ad-
vantage wool OF all kinds and grades.
Experience under high protection in this
country, for over thirty years, has demon
strated that our domestic wool growers
find il to their advantage TO produce the
staple wools.
The American manufacturer TO compete
with other nations must have the power of
selecting his raw material from ell the
worlds sources of supply. There is moth
ing new in these statements of Mr.. Hayes.
Sixty-four years ago, in speech in Con-
gress on the tariff question, Daniel Web
ster said:
at is said this tax on raw wool will bene-
flt the agriculturist; but know 1t to be
the opinion of some Of the best informed
of that class that IL will do them more
hurt than good. They fear II will check
check his demand for their article. The
argument is that a certain quantity of
course wool cheaper than we can possibly
furnish Ia necessary to enable the manu-
facturer to carry on the general business,
and that il this cannot be had the conse-
quence will be not a greater but a less
manufacture OF our own wool. I am
aware that very intelligent persons differ
upon this point; but IL we may safely in
fer from that difference of opinion that
] the proposed benefit Is at least doubtful
il would be prudent, perhaps, to abstain
from the experiment.
The argument made by that great states,
man, Daniel Webster, in 1924, is just az
| true today as IL was then. Our experience
since then under both high and low tariffs
| has demonstrated that we get more fol-
/ our wool In an open market when oul
manufacturers are not crippled by taz
| on their raw material, than in protected
| market which force them into the use OF
| cheap substitutes for wool and the produc
i ton Of inferior goods largely made up oi
4 cotton, waste and shoddy. II is q fact yoI
/ cannot deny, that the average prices oi
Il wool have, in the United States, been high
er under low tariffs than under the higt
Il tariffs.
Have you ever considered that Grea
Britain, France and Germany are the three
i great woolen manufacturing countries o.
i Europe, and they are the three great i'm
porters of wool? Atthe same time the.
are among the largest producers Of sheep
and they all admit wool free OF duty. Ac
cording to the latest wool statistics, thu
sheep product of Great Britain and IrelanC
is 28,955,24 under absolute free trade
1 against "A, ,759, ,3l4 In the vast territory o
/ this country, under the boasted system o
protection. France has 22,616,547 sheer
and Germany has 10, 100, 900. With unlimit
ed command of the markets of the worlt
for free wool these countries are the larg
est exporters Of wooden goods. On tn
States, that handicap their wooden indus
tries with tax on wool, cannot compet
successfully with their rivals in their Owl
or foreign markets.
How do you explain the fact that tn
gloomy predictions of the protecuonist
of this country in regard to free wool hav
not been realized by the sheep raisers O
the free wool countries of England
France and Germany The land in thos
countries Is as dear as ours, and tn
speep at least are no more "paupers
than are the sheep that browse on th
plains Of Plain township. Why do nc
4 the farmers of England, France and Ger
many demand the imposing of duties O
| wool In order to prevent the ruin of thei
I sheep industries Is Il not because the
know that the free importation of foreig
woods for mixing in order 70 produce a
varieties, increase the demand for the dc
mestic clip.
As to your claim that the Mills bill is
free trade bill do you not know that til
bill maintains higher protection than wa
fixed by any protection tariff in the Who'll
century of our government. The high tai
4 iff Of l842 taxed the people 33 per cen
| The Morrill, tariff of 1851 taxed them I
per cent, The present tariff taxes theI
over AZ per cent, and the Mills bill reduce
these taxes only about per cent, and q
this you are scared and say that it mean
free trade.
Do you not remember that the Republ
| can tariff commission recommended a r,
duction OF at least 20 per cent; and thl
/ President Arthur recommended a sui
stantial reduction of the duties on wo,
and wooden goods. ]. E. MoNNoT.
July IA, 1888.