Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1892-10-21

y our EN- pudliC NJ
AT the late conference of the State Tax
Commission in Harrisburg, the Committee
in valuation reported the total value OF all
property in the State-real, personal, and
mixed-at nine billions, six hundred mil
lions, (s9. .692, 900, ,000) and the total taxes
paid each year at forty nine millions, three
hundred thousand $40, 3S3, ,000.) The real
estate valuation was secured at the offices
of the County Commissioners, ,ofthe several
counties and is the assessed valuation.
Wool and Cotton.
1Extract from an answer in the New
York Tribune, to the assertion that the
Mckinley bill had reduced the price OF
wool.
Wool is produced in vast number OF
countries, just as cotton is. The prlee oil
wool and of cotton varies from year to year;
sometimes one goes up and the other goes
down; sometimes both 20 up, and some
times both 90 down. | mean such Is the
| case. taken as whole, all over the world.
Now wool has declined in price since the
passage of the Mckinley bill, not alone in
The United States, but also in England, in
South America. in Australia, and every
/ where else on the face of the earth. All
the tariff can do in such case is to keep
the price of our domestic wool higher IN
this country than the price OF iorelgn wool
| abroad This il does do. Ii TINS ureene
Codntv Democrat will examine the prlce
of W COL he will find that, while re-
ceived q cents pound last year for his
wool. the same grade of wool in Canada
and in London brought only from IL to is
cents a pound. Now, what the tariff on
wool did for the American farmer was to
prevent a still further reduction. Had IT
| not been for the Mckinley bill he would
not have received even p cents Tor his
| wool. and he would have been compelled
| to put il on the market here IN this coun-
/ trv in competition with wool which was
| selling abroad for IL and Is cents pound.
| He would probably have been compelled
i to take less than 20 cents pound for his
| wool had it not been for the very bill tnat
he is complaining about.
| The expectation of the people who passed
| the wool schedule was that it would tend
| to build up the general production and
1 manufacture of wool in this country. We
Il
/ crease in the number of sheep in the Unit
ed States. 80 that our own farmers would
| get the money which is now being sent
| abroad for foreign wool. No one for q
/ moment supposed that it would of necessi
tt raise the price of wool. We did expect
1 that it would save the people who raised
| sheep in this country from ruinous compe
/ tition with people who raised sheep II
countries where the rent of land Is merely
| nominal. and where they pay for labor 9
good deal less than one-half the amount
| paid for the same kind of work in the
/, United States. Our expectations were
/ we'll grounded. From 1888 down to the
| passage of the Mckinley bill the number
| of sheep had steadily decreased in the
| United States. Since the passage OF thai
| bill. the recent returns show sheep have
| increased in this country to the number o.
| over three millions, and the income OF oul
/ farmers has been greatly increased IN cen
4 sequence.
! Wool has been cheaper all over the
| world. owing to an enormous number oi
| circumstances which have nothing to dc
| with tariff laws anywhere, and which nc
/ system of tariff duties can alter. 1T such
/ is not the case, will our Greene County
| Democrat please tell me why cotton has
l had a greater decrease than even wool
| The tariff has in no way interferred will
the price of cotton, and yet q reduction III
It's price has been steadily going on.
Just why articles which are produced In
| such enormous quantity as wool and cot
| ton go up or down is a complicated prob
lem. The result can seldom be rightly at
| tribnted to any one cause. One person
will tell you that it is ON account OF over
| production: another will say, lack of con.
| sumption. In fact, both causes may really
| exist to reduce the price OF an article. Al
| a rule. the influence which always cheap
eng manufactured goods in the United
States do not apply to products of the soil
| | care not what the article is, On the i'm
| ports of which duty is levied, If it bf
l something produced by annual crops, a
tariff duty levied on the imported articl,
| will tend to strengthen the price OF sucf
articles at home, in the same way that the
! Mckinley bill has helped the price o
many articles produced on our farms sincs
] its passage. 1t has done this by prevent
| ing an influx OF the goods from the out
| side world, where they hare been produc
ed with cheap labor. Bat the high price
at home is maintained only Ia eases Wnere
| prices have been maintained all over the
| world.
| The price of wool presents no problem
| or puzzle. when once the reader under
| stands the fact that the object of protect
| i've tariff is to keep the markets of this
| country for our own producers, and to pro-
| tect home labor against the cheaper labor
| Of the Old World. OF course, whenever
| we by overproduction cheaper goods in the
| United States, the reaction on the markets
| abroad cheapens them also for the rest OF
| the world. When we drove down the
price of steel rails in this country, the
price was driven down also in England.
| When we produced cheaper cotton goods
| in the United States, they became cheaper
abroad We are now commencing in Ibis
| country to manufacture tin-plate for the
/ people of the United States. We shall
| drive the price of that article down here in
this country inside of the next twelve
months, ard the price will also be driven
down in Wales. The protective tariff does
not aim TO keep the price of any article up
to given point; it aims simply to enable
! our own people to make and produce artic
| les the country needs and pay high price
| for labor, as against people who produce
them with cheap labor in the world abroad.
| Wool is no exception to this rule. Just so
| long as the farmers of this country can re-
! alize or 10 cents pound more for their
| wool than the foreign producers of wool
can realize in our markets, our people will
| continue LO grow SHebpt lfEpICYo bHcil
nocks, increase the size of their feeces,
and % build up that growing industry.
This is all the answer, it seems to me,
| that need be made to this question. But
| am not inclined to let the matter rest
here. The claim Of the Free Traders is
| that what we need in this country is cheap
er raw material, and they call wool "raw
| material"
They go TO The manufacturer of wooden
goods aud say TO them, "Put wool on the
| free list and then you can get cheaper
wool" They then turn to the farmer, aud
they actually say: "Put wool on the free
list and you will get better price for your
| wool, because then the price of WOODEN
goods will be cheapened, the public will
| buy more woelen goods, the factories will
start up into renewed activity and create
a greater demand for wool, and then wool
will raise in price" They are actually
making this argument here in New York
City, and abroad in the country. Perhaps
this Greene County farmer thinks that
such will be the case. The Free Trader
is most surely not telling the truth to both
of these parties. | will take an oath that
if the purchaser of wool buys wool cheap
er in this country, the seller will get less
ard not more for his wool. If we should
repeal the duty on foreign wool, the for
eign wool grower would increase his hocks
instantly, and the increased production
would keep wool down.
IL is not necessary to argue that sheep
in the United States have increased in
price since the passage Of the Mckinley
bill. Every farmer knows that such is