The times., 1892-02-12

price of their product and that was decreas-
ing their fiocks. II such condition Of at
fairs existed each and every fockmaster
who asked for protection was asking for the
weapons to compass his own destruction.
Yet the Michigan Wool Grower Associa-
ton and the National Wool Growers Asso-
citation composed of men who have grown
wool and raised sheep, men who have stud
led the classification of wool, the texture
and fibre, men who are experts in their bus
iness, find that they are wrong, all wrong.
aside at one full swoop by the power of The
Press. Many writer would not have
dared to dash to pieces the fostered teBets OF
years, and under the circumstances also rush.
presume to promenade. There Is an assO-
citation of manufacturers who have always
wanted free wool, and these gentlemen set
forth to Congress memorial concerning
wool, which tells why 1t is low and why
they want the Mckinley bill repealed that 1t
may be lo,oer. 1t is to be noticed that these
petitioners and the Press do not agree In
their statements. The views Of these me-
morialists are given out of courtesy to them
and is not intended to reflect on the Press
conclusions, which are so satisfactory to
those who enjoy that kind of satisfaction.
The memorial recites:
In the first place, the increased cost of
wool, as compared with prices In Europe,
has forced the use of cotton and other adul-
terants to great and unusual extent; and,
secondly, il woOlen goods have not advanc-
ed, they might have been lower but for the
duties on wool. There is no question among
manufacturers that the act of 1890 was in
tended to advance prices, nor that 1t was
we'll calculated to do so to the extent that
consumers could afford. The most univer-
sal fall In prices was caused i'm very small
degree, IL at all, by the Tariff Act of 1890.
The tremendous losses In the Argentine Re-
public and elsewhere, the failure Of the
Barings, the dstrust caused by silver legis-
latiOn, the low price of cotton in the South,
on account of an enormous crop, the failure
of crops i'm the North and West prior to
1891, causing dull trade and reduced con-
sumption, are principal causes that brought
distress and falling prices
Add to the conclusions of this body of
WOODEN manufacturers, who argue to the
same end, but in different manner that of
the market reports. Comparing English
and Canadian markets, the difference in the
price of wool in the u. S. is markedly high
er because Of the tariff. Suppose we take
the argument of the Press that the McKin-
ley bill has lowered the price of wool. If this
were so what would become of Cleveland's
inclusion of the wool growers in that body
of men who by the tariff were taxing in
iquitously half billion of people, for their
support. According to the Press the wool
growers are contributing of their product to
the masses by lower prices all on account Of
the Gariff. But even then Cleveland might
have been mistaken. Hill is the oracle of
wisdom now and the Press may be giving
the revised woolen version by Hill. It's un-
grateful to Cleveland to be sure, but Cleve-
land is of the jibOoses, and the Press is
nothing if not democratic. There has been
constant increase in the number Of pounds
of wool grown when favored by protection,
and the consumption of wool has increased
within the last three decades 100 per cent.
When the farmer wants protection on wool,
he usually knows why he wants, and the
general charge of ignorance against the
farmers in relation to their true interests is
gathered from contact with those who herd
with the goats. a wider knowledge would
be obtained from a view from the right,
rather than from the left side.