Courier Democrat. (Langdon, N.D.) 1891-1920, 1892-09-29

that he got 10 cents more per pound
than the manufacturer had to pay him
and the price the manufacturer had
to pay was the cost of freight less than
the price abroad-let him. Over one
million wool-growers in the United
States were competing to sell wool to
1000 mill-owners, organized, who were
not competing either to sell their pro-
ducts or to buy their material, but who
agreed upon selling price for cloth
and buying price for wool barely
sufficient to keep it from being ex-
ported.
Every dollar of this 800, 900 COM
pensatory duty for the fleeces and the
SOC, OO0, 900 land more) private and per-
sonal $50 per cent? protection of their
own was collected from the American
people during 1850 b. the woollen-mill
owners; but the collection of the S70,-
0OO, 900 was bold theft, and the collec-
ton of the $50 200, 900 was under false
pretenses. These mill-owners are steal
ing from the taxpayers Of the country
$40 900 900 yearly, to which they have
no more right than the Tweed ring had
to the $12 100000 it stole from the tax
payers of New York. Of that there
can be no dispute and no denial. The
theft of the 70,OOO,OOO yearly must be
acknowledged even by the hired at
torneys for these thieves-the Cleve-
| land Leader, American Economist,
Home Market Bulletin and the New
York Press. Only the theft of the $50,
600, 900 that was to be paid the farmer
as his share of the Doodle is in dispute.
That was the bride offered the farmer
to vote for the 10 to 80 cents duty Oh
| wool which enabled the manufacturers
to steal $40, 100000 on shoddy. 1t was
as bold an offer OF counterfeit money
as was ever made by any ';green goods
sharper, and it was snapped at as
eagerly. But did they get any counter
felts? Did they get anything but saw
dust? Who sups with the devil should
have long spoon. Did the farmers
have any-and where is it?
But the apologists for the mill-owners
| will say that they did not steal so much
that they did not collect from the
people the whole 10 cents for each
pound Of grease wool Tor shoddy), and
they did not collect the whole so per
cent. granted for themselves. Why
not? What prevented them? Congress
authorized them to. The compensatory
duty was put on in accordance with
their solemn pledge to collect it from
the people-under the representation
that it was all to 60 to the farmer and
not 70 per cent to themselves. The so
per cent. additional was given them to
collect it. There was no reason why
they did not. They are organized into
trusts for this purpose. Where is the
proof they did not? Here is the official
proof that they did, that their selling
prices, fixed by their private trusts,
''scooped i'm the full amount of their
own and the farmers protection.
Turn to page 1856 of the Report Of
the Bureau Of Statistics for $780,"
Our woollen manufactures imported
that year cost abroad $54. 1865 ,422, and
cost to land S91 sos, 473-duties amount
ing to 1877 ,44O, 051 being levied, or 50 per
cent. These were sold in open market,
in easy competition with prices fixed
by the woollen-mill trusts. Here is an
Instructive table Of these impOrtatiOns,
showing the compensatory duty and
the number of pounds of grease wool
supposed to be in the cloth: