The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1892-01-01
sopnIsrRy GONE TO SEED.

yVu Will BCN IL CNeIy tltlCs Eist eStSSt
sound, persistent protection paper, and
second, call out Its reasons for the faith
that Is In II as to the general benefit Of the
tariff to the whole people. Take the New
York Press as an illustration. Speaking
OF the proposed policy which democrats
are likely to pursue In this congress-,hat
of not going into general tariff legislation,
but the introduction OF number of bills
reducing the duty on, or putting on the
free list such articles as salt, Iron ore, coal,
lumber, wool, binding twine, woolen goods
etc, Il says; "The abolition Of the duty on
wool would strike the sheep grower dis
astrously." Indeedl The predictions of
protection propagandists are to be taken
with an enlarged degree OF allowance.
The logic OF the Press Is, that to remove
the duty on wool will permit such heavy
imPortations OF otioreign wool that the price
of the home product must fall below liv-
Ing prices. Well, II this logic be good the
converse must be equally good, that an
increase of the duty on wool will result In
diminishing :he amount Of foreign wools.
II the wooden goods tariff were arranged
on plane with wool, then the Press logic
would be good but what has been the act
ual result of the inciea Ia the duty on
wool as provided for In the Mckinley bIlli
From the Summary Statement OF Imports
aud Exports" published by the treasury
department we iind that the amount OF
wool imported Into this country under the
old law for the nine months ending Sept.
ember 90, 1890 was 76,7aS.S6 pounds
while the amount imported under the
icKinley law fer The nine months end
Ing September 3oth 1891 was Io4, s3,, ,77S,
being an increase of sS,oo3,ou pounds.
These figures are taken from the records
OF the treasury department and can not be
questioned by any protee,ionist. So In
stead of the wool growers being made
more secure In the home market by the
passage of the McKinley law there has
been this large increase In wool impor,a-
tions with which our wool growers have
had 10 compete and this competition has
resulted In compelling them to sell their
wool at from to S cents less under the
Mckinley law than under the old law.
PhilosOphize and theoriEe rs protectionists
may, this rugged fact comes home to all
wool growers with great force and at last
they begin to see that the amount of ben
eft they derive from protection might be
put in fine scale without moving the
beam.
Now, compare the fact of this Increase
Of wool importations under the Mckinley
law aud the decrease In the price of Amer.
lean wool with what Thomas Dolan, a
leading wool manufacturer Of Philadelphia
said In published letter under date Of
Aug. I3th last and wool growers may be-
gin to see how they are hoodwinked. lie
said:
III is an interesting fact, deserriHg much
emphasis Of abatement, thai tie prices Of svOol
are LOzr H0w finn they ,csre Que year ago.
Tbs decline was disfineiiy Promised BY pro-
fSefioEists dHriRg lie diseHsaoH spLieA ac-
eOmfdAied the .framiag Of tie AfeRisIey
tariff"
Now. couple these with the further fact
that for the nine months ending Scptem-
Der 5oth, 1890, the total value Of wooden
goods imported was S4s,6o3,S4S while the
tCtal amount imported under the McKin-
ley law for the nine months ending Sept
ember goth, 1891, was S27,3o1Ii4 being a
falling of In nine months Of over SiS,ooo,.
600. All these facts intelllgently COM
pared will show who receives all the bea-
eft accuring from the tariff on wool and
woolens When Mckinley raised the duty
on wool from "a to 20 per cent he increased
the duty on wooden goods from 81 to 81
per cent, thus giving the manufacturer all
the benefit. The Press says quitting
salt on the free list would close up our salt
works and leave US dependent on other
nations for an article absolutely essential to
life; cotton ties sare cheaper In this country
than before ths Mckinley bill went Into
effect and II put on the free list would
soon go to high prices" A man who
looks at matters nationally will be quick to
ask why putting salt on the free list will
make 1t so cheap tlat our own works
would close up while putting cotton ties
on the free list would send the price up.
1t Is just such soPhistry and such bare
naked statements that protcciionists find
necessary to resort to In order to maintain
their grounds in favor of tariff that robs
the many and gives the III gotten gains to
the few. II the Prcss ees so mnch danger
involved In putting wool and salt on the
free list, why did 1t not raise It's voice
when Mckinley put sugar on the free list1
The danger was Just as great. The ans
wer is obvious; sugar Is product of the
south. The protectlonlsts a.e perfectly
willing that any article produced In a
democratic state shall be placed on the
free list. Protection Is wholly selfish and
immoral.