Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1893-09-08
THE TARIFF ON WOOL
1T HAS BEEN A BUNkO GAME TO DE-
CEIVE THE FARMER.

For Many Years the Agricultural Sections
Have Been Voting For System That
Despoiled Them-Where the Benefits of
Compensatory Taxes Come In.
The tariff on wool was used for long
series of years to hold the farmers of the
United States to the support Of the pro-
tective system. The dreadful evils that
would follow free wool were wildly de-
scribed, and the ruse was so successful
that for many years the country wit
messed the curious spectacle of great ag-
ricultural sections voting at every cleo
ton for the system that despoiled them.
Last year the charm no longer worked,
but the failure then did not convince
the Republicans that the argument had
lost its force. In fact, they are today,
with the Mckinley bill in full operation,
trying to convince farmers that the cleo
ton of Mr.. Cleveland has caused a de-
cline in the price Of wool. The whole
wool argument was largely fraud and
humbug from the beginning. In the
United States wool is for the most part
what is called byproduct In other
words, sheep are grown principally for
the mutton, and the wool is only an in
cident. How this works in practice may
be illustrated by local item taken from
one of our state exchanges, the Lebanon
Enterprise:
"Mr. Joseph H. Hagan of the st. Ma
rvs district, in this county, has IL stock
ewes, from which he has sold the wool
this season for Sits and the lambs for
$8O.70; net sales, $9s.4s, or an average of
1896 3-11 to the eve. Who can beat itY
Now, this statement is made simply to
show the whole amount realized. It is
not part of any argument to show that
the lambs are of more value than the
wool. Yet under the full measure of
protection afforded by the Mckinley
bill the wool brought SITS and the
lambs $80.70. In other words, the lambs
were worth nearly five times as much as
the wool. It is clear enough from this
statement that the mutton is the princi-
pal product, and the wool only by
product.
In spite of this very evident fact the
wool tariff has been made to play a great
part by the protectionists. The farmer
is taxed about 100 per cent on his cloth
ing and even more on some grades. He
is heavily taxed on his blankets, on his
carpets, and, in short, on everything COM
posed wholly or in part of wool.
When he has complained of these ex-
actions, the protectionists have pointed
complacently to the wool tariff and
asked if the farmer wished to see wool
free. They have told him that large
part of the tax on woolens is compensa-
tory-that is, that it is necessary to COM
pensate the manufacturer for the in
creased price which he is obliged to pay
for his raw material.
They have taken care, too, that the
manufacturer gets the best of these COM
pensatory duties. While the highest
duty on wool is IL cents pound, the
compensatory duty on woolens is in
some instances as high as 491 cents per
pound. This difference is based upon
the shrinkage that results from securing.
it being pretended that it requires A.
pounds of unwashed wool to make a
pound of the fabric. There are great
differences in the shrinkage of different
grades of wool, but it is well known
that the compensation allowed for the
wool duties is much in excess Of what it
should be.
What the protective tariff exacts from
the farmers on woolens is, however, but
part of the sum total. All the pro-
tective duties are supported by system
of log rolling, and for little question
able protection on byproduct the ag-
ricultural interest is taxed on hundreds
of articles of necessity. 1t has been a
gigantic bunko game, and yet it is
thought possible to deceive the farmers
with it second charlottesville Cou-
rier-J ournal.