The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1892-07-28
THE WOOL INDUSTRY.

| The Democrats, true to their natural
propensities to thrive on every misfor-
tune that befalls the farmer, make
great to do over the fact that the price OF
wool has declined under the Mckinley
law, and, as in all other calamities that
heset us as a people, they stoutly MAIN
tain that the Mckinley bill did it, but
just how is left to conjecture. Wool
has declined in the last two years, and
no one attempts to deny it; but instead
| of the present law being the cause OF
that decline we shall attempt to show
that it came at an opportune moment to
prevent disaster to the wool industry in
this county. The best authorities on
both sides of this subject generally agree
that the question of prices is simply
question of supply and demand. They
do not agree, it may be observed, just
| how and to what extent legisla-
ton may affect this general rule,
but in the absence of any extraneous in
fuences they agree on the principle. 1t
will hardly be contended that an IN
crease in the rates of duty on imported
wool would have a tendency to increase
the supply from abroad, neither can 1t
be reasonably asserted that there has
| been a sufficient increase in the domestic
product to affecs the market in this way.
The question would then be one ofsupply
and demand if we had free wool. From
this standpoint let us see what might
have been expected if the Mckinley bill
had not interposed to change the gem
eral effect of this universal rule. Lon
don rules the world on wool prices, and
the phases of that market for the last
two or three years will explain the
causes of the decline in wool prices.
| From Oct l, 1890 to March 1, 1891, five
months, Immediately following the Nc
Kinley bill, London received 242, 800
bales OF wool as against 265, 600 for the
entire year preceding Oct l, 1890. Al
most as much wool was marketed in the
five months, Immediately after the Nc
Kinley bill became a law, as for
the entire year just prior to that
| time. The average price per
bale for the year prior to October 1,
1890 was 14e IS ID. This represents
decline of fully 25 per cent. while the
decline has never reached per cent.
1t was stated last March on the best
authority obtaiDable that Australian
wool in London had reached the lowest
price on record, and this summers sales
here in the west show a slight sympathy
with that state of affairs by slight de-
cline of from II to 2 cents. To show
that some barrier has Interposed between
the American wool grower and demon
allied foreign market, let US compare
prices here with those in London. The
average price of fine grades of secured
wool from the lowest to the highest i'll
Philadelphia in March, 1882, was 29a
cents, while if the same decline had
taken place in this market that took
place in London the average
price would have been lis cents,
which would have been general decline
of over III cents. Another calculation
on ten different grades show an average
price in Philadelphia, in March, 1892, of
30t cents, while the price in London, on
same grades, averaged only 1876, which
indicate that American prices would
have had to fall almost ii cents on these
grades TO have fully met the decline
abroad. Notwithstanding we raised our
tariff WALL very much higher against
! foreign woods than we have had since
1883, the very low prices paid for wool
in London made it possible for foreigners
to still scale that wall by paying the in
creased duty and get in to the extent Of
enough at least to affect our market from
? to cents. How then would it have
been if the Mckinley bill had not stepped
in Just when it did? Instead of a slight
decline of or 5 cents there would hav
been a general decline Of not less than -
cents. Furthermore, just how the
Mckinley bill, by an increase in
the duty on wool, thereby tending
to shut off certain kinds of COM
petition, operates TO cause a decline In
The price f wool, when in other things
we are told that the duty increases the
price, does not appear to the uninitiated.
l. is, also something difficult TO under
stand Just how free wool is going to
operate TO give the farmers better prices
Tor his wool, and at the same time give
the manufacturer cheaper wool to make
UP into clothing. Why should the manu-
facturer have any advantage anyhow. if
as we are told out here, he is a ''robber"
and theft 1t is absurd TO urge free
wool for the manufacturer on the
ground that the poor people who buy his
clothing will get The benefit in cheaper
clothes, for who ever heard Of these
.'robber" manufacturers giving any body
the benefit OF this or any other advaD-
tGge. Ii there is any truth In Demo
cratic speeches and documents these
manufacturers are already getting The
lions share of everything, and as rob
bers' don't usually give away anything
after they have secured il the plea for
free wool Tor them - enable them TO
give poor people cheaper clothing IS a
manifest absurdity. But by far the
greatest humbug is the attempt 10 be-
fudile the farmer who raises sheep with
the idea that ny doubling the supply Of
what lie IS producing he viii increase
the price OF Il. There Is no doubt that
Democratic figures are susceptible OF
some startling combinations, and that Il
Is NOS absolutely certain II the Demo
cratic arithmetic that TWO times TWO are
fosr, especially if this universally &C
copied fact contradicts some finely con-
structed free trade theory; but this last
dodge to fool the sheep raisers should be
carefully preserved aud put ON exhibit
tioa at the worlds fair as 3 wonderful
discovery IN mathematics that eluded the
: diliSent researches Of Sir Isaac New
Ton. Humphrey Davy, and al