The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1892-07-15

DeuOCIdG " buc COn6IdIN HOIWlIH-
standing. Hedged in on all sides
by solid wall of fact, whichit can
no longer deny, the Democratic
organ tries to wriggle out of its
untenable position by virtually ex-
claiming: "Oh, the price Of wool
was or should have been only %
cents but somebody forced it."
Who forced it: And what did
the william 90: Pray tell us all
aboutIt.
Did some wicked McKinleyite
with malice aforethought, go round
paying two or three cents pound
for wool more than 1t was worth
just for joke to fool the people?
If any fellow did a thing like that,
| hope the Democrat will capture
and preserve him as a specimen,
for as a downright unmitlgated
fool he would surely take the cake.
But to theunsophistcated farmer
it did not look that way. 1t did
not seem as though there was any
need of forcing the market, for the
wool BUYERS came round to the
farmers houses, and engaged their
wool, and IN many case advanced
the larger part Of the purchase
even while it was vet on the Sleeps
backs. 1t is true that two years
ago wool sold at q cents per pound,
but is it true that an increrse of
duty of about one cent per pound
caused the decline? The Democrat
says it did, but does it believe it?
Our wool markets have been crowd
ed with foreign wool; does anybody
outside of an insane asylum believe
that the foreign wool growers would
send more wool to our markets be-
cause the price was lower, and be-
cause the duty was higher? We are
getting more foreign wool than we
did two years ago while the price is
lower and the duty higher. Does
the Democrat think that the higher
duty and the lower price is sufi-
cient explanation, or is it the truth
that the price of wool has declined
IN the markets Of the world. and
more in other countries than in
this? Everybody. with a possible
single exception or two, knows that
prices are regulated by supply and
demand, when thing is scarce the
price for it is high and vice versa.
Now does anybody believe that the
Australian would crowd more wool
on to our markets when he has to
pay IL and II cents per pound at
our custom houses that he would
if it came in free? The farmer who
would be persuaded by his local
editor to take down his fence so
that his neighbors stock could roam
at will through his crops, believ-
ing that it would not injurc them,
would he ieered at as an unmiti-
gated ass, but his would be a mild
type of lunacy along side of the
fellow who believes that America
can become the dumping ground
for the wool products of the world
with out bringing down the price
to the common level elsewhere.
But the Democrat seems to think
1t can make the simple minded far
mer believe that bv some sort of
hocus- pocus the Democrat will
fix it so that the price of his wool
will 60 mp, while that Of other peo-
pies wool will go down.
This would certainly be a very
extraordinary performance, and
would rather eclipse that of the
fellow who undertook to aim his
gun so that if 1t was calf he was
shooting at he would miss it., out if
1t was deer, he would hit it.
Do the intelligent farmers Of
Garrett county have any confidence
in this sort Of jugglery, and do
they propose to place their prosper.
ity and then fortunes in the keep
ing OF a party OF such transparent
slams and false pretenses?
Two years ago as already stated
wool sold for q cents per pound.
1t was then understood that the
duty would be increased which NAV
have had some influence on prices.
Last year at the opening of the
season on account of largely IN
creased imports the price was said
to be only % cents per pound,
whereupon the Democrat seemed
jubilant. 1t exulted over the i'm,
aginary discontinue of the Repub-
lican farmers, gleefully exclaimlng
addressing itself to them, chow do
You like ltnow?" with a good deal
more of the same sort of left handed
comfort for the Republican far
mer."
Did it show friendship in this or
was it not imprudently eager to
make political capital for it:
Now who handles the truth car
lessly: the party who, pretending to