The weekly tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1891-1894, 1892-03-26
WOOL.

The wool growers OF Montana ant
other western states will be given an op
portunity to declare by their votes this
fall whether the. want free wool or pro
tected wool. If they consult their real in
terests they will vote overwhelming for
free wool. If they vote as their republi-
can enemies want them TO they will vote
for protected WOO
"a"
The weakness OF the position Of the
republican party ON questions concerned
with the tariff is no where more appar-
ent than on the question of the tariff on
wool. The stock argument of the re-
publicans on all tariff questions is that
the high tariff gives the American pro-
ducer better prices. Yet when asked to
tell where the price of American wool
has been Increased under the operation
of the Mckinley bill. they are absolutely
silent. They cannot deny that the prices
IF American wool have steadily declined
under the tariff, As Il matter Of fact
wool has decreased one-half III value and
the sheep one.half in number during dur
ing the past twenty five years. while
population and taxes have been largely
increasing.
The tariff ON wool is not only an I'M
necessary and useless tax it is Il positive
injury to the American wool interests.
1t was advocated by the Ohio wool
growers who were leu to believe that it
would advance the price. The effect has
been the reverse. and the tariff is
destroying the Ohio tlocks. In 1868
Ohio bad $4,000 sheep. Now. after
so many years of high protective duties
on wool. Ohio has but 4,N6l 900 sheep.
From 1857 until 1863 wool was practi,
cally on the free list. The result wal
that wool growing paid handsomely, and
the number of sheep in the country in
creased. The secret OF it was that
foreign wool is needed TO mix with the
American wool aud the larger the i'm
portation of foreign wool the larger the
demand for American wool and the
higher the price. The decline began
with the high tariff in 1861.
t."
1t is not merely the wool grower that
is interested III the removal of the tariff
on wool. Everybody who purchases
wooden clothing is also interested. The
r,,rtl;,,,, h;,l, t,xare ;,a;,4 th,t thn
tariff has brought about lower prices on
wooden goods, but when brought face to
face with the facts. they cannot deny
that the present high tariff compels the
purchaser to pay higher prices for his
wooden goods or accept shoddy. the lat
ter being the alternative that confronts
the poor. The largest wooden manufac-
turer in the United States in his speech
in congress not long ago advocated the
repeal Of the duty on wool and gave as
one Of the reasons for his position that
free wool would do away with the ne
cessity for the use of shOddy in our
clothing.
r."
As ii matter Of fact. too. it is shoddy
that stands in the way of free wool. 1t
is the shoddy manufacturers that want
the duty on wool kept up. not the wooden
men. The products of the shoddy mills
amount to lo0.UUo.UU pounds and they
take the place of all wool goods. The
Mckinley bill! doubled the duty on
shoddy. thus atfording it more protection
than is given to wool growers and wool
manufacturers. The result has been to
shut out American woods and in conse-
quencc they have declined in Price. Con.
sumers, on the other hand, have been
swindled into paying the prices Of good
clothing for this mixture of shoddy.