The weekly tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1891-1894, 1892-07-16
%istence, the tariff seemingly having little
effect upon the price.

ohoCt upou the price.
The Sherman tariff of 1867 raised tn
duties on clothing wool So per cent, OF
combing AZ per cent and on carpet 9!
per cent. This brings us to a periot
when the effect of wool tariffs upon tn,
sheep industry may be more accuratel,
determined. When that tariff was i'm
) posed lin 1867 sheep raising WIS prin
cipally confined to the states of Ohio
Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, In.
diana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Iowa. In
that year according to the United States
agricultural reports those states had
2~0,S10,222 sheep. Sheep raisers had the
high wool tariff they had been clamoring
for and it was expected the industry
would brace up and the number of
sheep increase. But statistics show a
different condition of things. According
to the same authority, each state each
year for 81 years showed a falling off in
the number of its sheep and in 1888
they showed in the aggregate only
12,21l,O7G.
For over two decades it is shown that
high protection did not foster, build up
and plant the wool industry upon a
tirmer basis in those states. On the con-
trary it annually languished and today it
is practically destroyed, the Mckinley
tariff leveling the death-deallng blow.
In the meantime while sheep were being
forced out in the middle and western
states named, they found a more p%rofita-
BILE home upon the broader ranges of
Texas and California. Statistics for 20
years show the growth and decline of the
industry in those two states. In 1869
Texas and California had nearly 3,OOO.-
600 sheep, in 1884 they reached their
highest number 100000. In 1888 the
number had fallen to S,JOO,OOO. 1t is
much less today. What has high wool
tariffs done for those states? We will
answer 1t has forced them out of the
wool business and brought their hooks
down to a mutton consumption basis.
Let us see how this is.
When the wal broke out every posi-
BILE source of revenue was utilized and
wool had to bear its share of the public
burdens. The ultimate burden which
republican leaders believed wool could
bear was put upon it in 1867 when the
tax was raised to 55.43 and % per cent.
according to grade. Many of our ablest
manufacturers then predicted that the
tariff would do great injury to the WOOL
industry of the country. Those pre-.
were abundantly fulfilled long
before the Mckinley bill stepped in to
'orce the industry in the grave. But it
vas urged the tariff would work to the
advantage of wool ~raisers and would
stimulate production. Wool-raisers
themselves promised that with the 1867
.aritf they would furnish all the wool
he country needed.
They have not kept the promise simply
because they couldn't. This is shown
~ the fact that the number of sheep
asst of the Mississippi river has dimin-
shed from nearly 100000 in 1867 to
100000 in 1880. And even in the states
territories west of the Missouri [
here most Of the wool is raised today {
he same condition is apparent in the t
laughter of lambs for the table-notably c
! Colorado, Texas and California. In r
latter state the wool clip has fallen a
ON over 5G,OOO,OOO pounds in 1876 to
100000 in 1890. This cannot be from i
lex of protection on wool for the tariff t
,x Of 10 cents a pound on the kind of
DOL raised in that state is equal to a a
rejection of GO to 10 per cent. This is \
lOugh, God knows. But the fact is e
lat the sheepman can get "a better price h
n his mutton at less trouble than he u
IN realize by keeping his sheep for the +
under a tariff that gives his output a
D show in the markets of the world. t
tatistics show that during the past
venty ycars-a time of high protection v
wool-upwards OF 20,OOO,OOO sheen r.
ave been killed for mutton every year. 5
Wv, "iic'o oocS piotcCtlOH DeIeIlt tnc I
grower when he can make more t
oney by raising sheep for mutton than +,
r their wool. d
High protection for wool has intro e
iced a very mischievous article to com Il
tie with wool growers. This article is q
oddly. 1t has become a very important "
ctor in depressing the wool market Mr.. e.
ckinley levied duty of 30 per cent. W
BON shoddy. Under the Morrell tariff "
Ie duty was ID per cent. In 1860 we II
I'd 30 shoddy mills, and they we're CT
lall concerns. We now have 9G big C
osperous shoddy mills running full o.
lnded. In 1891 these mills turned out a
100000 pounds of shoddy, and they
o annually increasing their output. W
70 years ago the National Association b
Wool Manufacturers estimated our W