The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1893-10-21
A Chapter on Wool.

The Washington Observer, printed
in county whose wool growing in
dustry has been protected to death.
or at least into q steady decline in
prices and production, says The
Post processes to believe that the
duty is of no benefit to the wool
growers, and then it inquiries il we
are honest in The belief, ''or merely
seek to delude the wool growers.
1t is not q question OF mere belief,
but Of actual and dsmonstratable
facts; facts that We have noticed the
Observer and all other Republican
papers carefully keep from their
readers. II = protective tariff in
creased the price Of wool the evidence
should be readily obtainable, ~ We
have had heavy protective duties on
wool since 1867, period Of rs years,
and prices are u matter Of record.
We have before Us a tabular state
ment, not necessary to give in full,
which shows that during the 81 years
Immediately preceding the high tar
ia era-that is, from 1847 to 1857
inclusive-the average price in Bos-
ton of the kind OF wool that Wash
ington county markets WAS 48 cents
pound. This was during an era
OF virtual free wool, under what the
Republicans delight to call "the free
trade tariffs of 1916 and 1857" For.
ty-eight cents was the average price
pound! Now for the 81 years, COM
mencing in 1868 and ending in 1888,
under a high protective tariff this
statement, giving the quotations
year by year, shows hat the aver
age price of wool in the Boston mar
ket has been AZ cents pound. Since
1888 when the quotstions were 80
cents pound, wool has been steadily
declining. The Mckinley tariff Of
1890, still further increasing the du-
ties on wool, did not stay the decline.
On the contrary wool not only fell
in price after the Mckinley bill pass
ed, but the imports of foreign woods
largely increased. Washington coun-
ty wool is now quoted in Boston at
about "a cents. and is selling from
the farms of Washington county At
20 cents and even less-lower prices
than are recorded in the treasury re-
port on wool, since 1924, u period of
SO years. So much for Is years OF
protection and three years of Nc
Kinleyism.
But this decline in the price OF
wool under protection is not the only
evidence we have that the tariff is an
unimportant factor as to the wool in
dustry. At the commencement OF the
high tariff period on wool, in 1867,
there were in Pennsylvania, accord
ing to the census reports, about L.
10000 sheep. The number in tho
state at this time, after 26 years of
protection, is only about 100000,
falling off Of upward of so per cent.
In the first year Of the operation
Of the Mckinley law the imports Of
wool into the United States from
foreign countries increased 10000
900 pounds, which is nearly three
times the amount of the annual wool
clip of Pennsylvania.
Now we submit to the Observer, or
rather to the wool growers Of Wash
ington, Greene and other counties Of
Western Pennsylvania, If these facts
do not demonstrate that a protective
tariff has not the effect aimed at ON
the wool growing industry. We
challenge contradiction of the fig
ures we have presented. They show:
C That after quarter of a century
of protection the number of sheep in
Pennsylvania has fallen off one half;
~ that the price of wool has de-
clined in the same proportion, and
(3) that under the Mckinley law,
framed for the ostensible purpose Of
keeping out foreign woods, the i'm
ports of wool have largely increased.
If this doesn't make out clear case
no proposition connected with the
tariff is susceptible of demonstration.
We repeat that the depression in the
price of wool must be sought for in
other causes than the tariff rates.
Wool has been at its highest under
virtual free wool, and has been at its
lowest under the present existing
essences of MISUNDERSTANDING
Post.