The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1892-04-13
The Indiana Shenherd.

When the springtime comes and the
fall election begins to put forth its little
buds the Indiana Farmer invariably gets
out its non-partisan pillow and turns few
burrows of entirely non-partisan tariff soil.
Its favorite subject is wool, and by some
strange fatality it always gets on the re-
publican side of the question. OF course
this is no fault of the Farmer. All that it
really desires is to keep the tillers of the
the painful fact that their interests always
lie on the side of protection is something
that it cannot help. 1t is this impulse to
help on the honest granger that produced
a certain editorial on 'the wool duty"
which is now going the rounds of the
republican country press of this state.
The first proposition of this article is
that the wool growers everywhere have
passed resolutions against disturbing the
law fixing duty on foreign wool"-that is
to say, the Mckinley bill. We dissent. 1t
is true that some seventeen breeders of
fancy rams, who call themselves the
Wool growers association of Indiana, did
pass such resolutions, and that similar or
carnations in other states have done so,
but the idea that they are the wool grow
ers of the state is a most delightful alb
surdity. Ninety-nine per cent. ofthe wool
growers of Indiana never attend this asso-
citation, and most of them have too much
sense to desire the continuance of wool
tariff under which the price of wool has
continually decreased.
The Farmer next wants to know who
asked for the repeal of this Mckinley
wool duty. We can tell it. The people
OF the United States asked for it by ma
jority of 100000 votes in the first general
election after the law was passed. The
people OF Indiana Joined in that demand
by a majority of 10000 votes, not count
ing prohibitionists and peoples party
voters who also denounced the Mckinley
bill in toto. The majorities were even
more pronounced in the country districts
than in the cities. That was when the
real wool growers spoke, and that is what
they said.
The Farmer next advances the PROPOSE
NlCh hiot III hht past lGdi VI hNO hhbNp
husbandry has been the most profitable
live stock industry of our farmers" II
true there is no wonder that the farmer is
having a hard time. There are in this
state about 100000 people supported by
agriculture. There we're reported in the
state in 1890, by the state statistician.
1,23i, al sheep, which is 100000 less than
the average number for twelve years past
These sheep are said to be worth 50, 1885,
$50, which is an average of s. to each per-
son supported by agriculture. The esti-
mated wool clip is 1887 1872 pounds, or a
little less than three pounds each, or about
90 cents each. There can be little question
that the increased price of clothing to
each, on an average, is greater than the 90
cents worth of wool with the s. worth Of
sheep added. But even il the removal of
tine tariff on wool reduced the price OF
wool one-half. the vAue of the sheep
would not be materially affected, as ii is
well known that our sheep are chiefly
valuable for mutton and are raised for
that purpose and as part of general farm
stock like chickens. No one in Indiana
follows sheep raising as business except
few fancy breeders