Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1893-08-31
THE TARIFF ON WOOL
II HAS BEEN A 6UNKo GAME TO DE-
cENE The FARMER.

For Many Years the Agricultural Sections
Have Been Voting For = System That
DespoIlsd 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 vividly de-
scribed, and the ruse was so successful
that for many years the country wit
messed the curious spectacle Of great az.
ricultural sections voting at every elec-
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 elec.
ton of Mr.. Cleveland has caused 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
Enterprises:
"Mr. Joseph n. Hagan Of the st. Ma.
ry's district, in this county, has II stock
ewes, from which he has sold the wool
this season for Sits and the lambs fol
$s0.7O; net sales, $9s.4s, or an average Of
$S.95 3-11 to the eve. Who can beat it?'
Now, this statement is made simply to
show the whole amount realized. 1t 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 $17.7S and the
lambs $S0.70. In other words, helamb:
were worth nearly five times as much as
the wool. 1t 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 great
part by the protectionists. The farmer
is taxed about 100 per cent on his cloth
ing and even more ON some grades. HI
Is heavily taxed ON his blankets, on hi:
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 WOO
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 thu
manufacturer gets the best of these com
pensatory duties. While the highes
duty on wool is 12 cents pound, til,
compensatory duty on woolens is il
\ some instances as high as 49i cents pc
pound. This difference is based upo1
the shrinkage that results from securing
it being pretended that it requires A
pounds of unwashed wool to make 1
pound of the fabric. There are grea
differences in the shrinkage of differen
grades of wool, but it is well known
that the compensation allowed for tn,
wool duties is much in excess of what i
should be.
What the protective tariff exacts from
the farmers ON woolens is, however, bu
part of the sum total. All the pro
tective duties are supported by system
of log rolling, and for little question
able protection on a byproduct the ag
ricultural interest is taxed on hundred
Of articles of necessity. 1t has been
gigantic bunko game, and yet it i
thought possible to deceive the farmer
with it second time.-Louisville Cou
rier-J Journal.