The weekly tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1891-1894, 1892-01-02
SATURDAY. JANUARY ., 1882.
A REPUBLICiN SCHEME.

The st. Paul Globe is authority for
the statement that lit is minated in
high republican quarters that. if the
democrats in the house pass a special
tariff bill this winter, removing the
duties on WOOL. il may be allowed to go
through the senate and become a law"
This is to be done as a matter of policy
nov of justice to all concerned by the
republicans of the senate. 1t is reasoned
that # wool be placed on the free list it
will help the republicans in the manu-
featuring states and make them stronger
IN the sheep states at the next national
election as they will promise t. restore
the duty for the bcnclitof sheep rowers
The plan is not IA brilliant one. If the
republican enatc permit Il free wool bill
tn 20 through that body it must share
the responsibility of whatever of good or
thing that stands in tn" way of capitaliz-
in- this plan for the benefit of the re-
publican party. Protcctionists may
theori2e as they will the fact starcs them
in the face that wool always bore a bet
ter price under a low tariff than under Il
high one. The condition of the wool
market today coufounds the protection
theory. According to that theory IA big
tax IN the WOODS Of Australia and South
America ought to rrprrss their importa-
tlon or put up their cost To the manu-
facturers so that home producers can get
higher figures. But the theory doesn't
work out to the satisfaction of either
nome WOO growers or home wooden
manufacturers. This is due to the fact
that the very long fine woods and cheap
coarse woods which are not grown in
this country are necessary to mix with
the native article.a without them there
will be a lesscned demand for home
growth and consequently lower prices.
This is the condition which confronts
the protection theory. The duty on un-
washed wool is l. cents per pound. "a
on washed, and 3 on secured woods. Be
fore it is tit to be manufactured it costs
at least 3G cents a pound. Allowing six
pounds to each sheep the average farmer
Keeps and he would get. provided the
duty of y cents IA pound were added to
the price, - cents additional for each
fleece. He would. unless he keep large
numbers Of sheep, more than lose this
extra price in the increased cost of the
wooden goods he must bny for himself
and his family. The best the protection
theory. then, could do would be to give
~ cents more per year to each farmer
who keeps sheep.
Now, let us look at results. Without
gong into the computations it is found
that in consequence Of this duty the cost
OF the common cashmere used for cloth
ing will be increased Is cents a yard. As
much more must her be added for the
ma ufacturcr's tariff, and if but one yard
of cloth is used for each person, the -
cents Of profit, through the duty, is met
by 30 cents added cost. If two yards be
used The loss is 30 cents more. But not
a third of the farmers in the country
keep sheep, therefore the other two
thirds in common with the non-agri-
cultural class are mulcted the increased
cost Of the cloth without compensation.
Carrying the matter of prices still
farther we find a large addition will be
made to the price Of all wool goods,
stockings, underwear, blankets, hats.
etc. On many kinds of wooden goods
the duty runs all the way from 100 per
cent to 2l2 per cent. This so increases
their cost that the great majority Of the
laborlng class are cut off from their use.
This is the condition which confronts
the theory of protection on wool, and
therefore We say the republican scheme
Of permitting d free wool bill to pass the
senate will not add to the campaign
material of that party in the manner
looked for. The great masses of the
people will hail such d bill with pleas
urc: the sheepmcn themselves will be
benefited and become it's advocates; the
manufacturers will profit by it and no
interests will suffer. while the demo
cratic party will receive credit for fore
ing the measure upon the senate.