The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-12-01
THE WOOL QUESTION.

II VIII perhaps De useless TO appear
to such sheep raisers in Utah as can
only sense the fact that they are get
ting a very low price for their wool
this year, to examine the whole ques-
ton of the effects of high protection
and free trade in the raw material
That class form an easy prey to the
Republican sophists and only expert
ence will divest their minds of the
errors that they have imbibed
There are sheep men in the territory
however, who know that they received
less for their wool under a high tariff
than under a low that there are
causes which operate on markets for
all kinds of products that do not spring
from political sources, and they are
just as ardent Democrats as others
who are not blinded by self interests
whether as to wool or otherwise.
Both these classes ought to be able
to appreciate the fact that Utah wool
has not commanded as high a figure
in the market as some other kinds,
and SHOULD recognize the importance
of making it as valuable as possible.
Whether the ruling figures are high or
low, whether protection or free trade
is the rule, our wool growers certainly
ought to place on the market as good,
clean and high grade heeces as can be
produced in this region.
The grades of wool are numerous
and the eastern prices are regulated by
the grade. Territorial woods rate lower
than any others because they are in
ferior for manufacturing purposes.
The finer sorts are in greater demand
and this demand has been growing as
the manufacturers are trying to COM
pete with the foreign high-class article
Eastern woods. Ohio grown for ex-
ample. run away ahead of anything
furnished by this region. There are
reasons for this, of course. But there
is no reason why Utah should not
improve in its quality of fieeces put
upon the market and obtain cores
pondingly better prices.
One cause of the poverty of our Utah
product is the miserable manner in
which many focks are wintered. Ex-
posure, semi-starvation, insufficient
water supply and such privations
which many f1ocks endure, deteriorate
the quality and consequent value of
the wool they bear Evenness of fibre
is quality that is priced by the
manufacturer and watched by the
dealer. This is absent in poorly cared
for sheep. Inferior wool will bring in
ferior prices, tariff or no tariff
The sheep men of Utah will always
find a demand for mutton, and flock
raising can be made measurably re-
munerative even with wool at a very
low demand. But both in the meat
value ana in the wool value, they will
find it more profitable to take good
care of their fiocks, particularly in the
winter season. than by the neglect in
this particular which is common in
this region of range herding.
When unable to provide fodder,
roots and other sheep feed as well as
shelter for an entire flock for the win
ter, wise sheep men will make selec-
tons and not expose to the inclemen-
cy of severe weather the less hardy
and thrifty of their herds. Good judg-
ment in this respect will be found
worth a great deal of money.
Returning to the question of the eff
fects of the tariff on the wool market.
and in reply to the selfish aspect of
the argument, we wish to say simply
that as between the producers and the
of wool there is a vast dis
parity of numbers. 1t is not mere
ly question of locality but of popu-
lar interest. The millions on millions
of consumers ought not to be taxed for
the special benefit of a few thousands
Of producers, even if it could be shown
which it has not been yet--that free
wool makes low prices for the domes-
tic product. The interests of the vast
body of the consumers ought to be
considered in preference to those of a
comparatively very few producers,
when national legislation is in view. /.
That is our contention. And that is
Democratic poIicy-the benefit of the
whole people above the emolument of
a class.
The following letter, pertinent to this
question, is addressed to the editor of
the Ogden Sun, and makes good read
ing for all sheep men in Utah:
Governor A. L. Thomas reported to
the secretary of the interior depart
ment that there were in Utah for 1891,
l, 4So,392 head of sheep, and for 1892
about 1,125,00O Ito get this number two
counties not reported have to be esti-
mated), a loss to your flocks of 100, 3l2.
Now, gentlemen, please remember that
the Mckinley bill in all its vigor was in
full operation for your especial benefit.
so that, with all its fair promises, you
found it TO your interest to reduce your
fockS in 1892 below the amount you
carried over for 1891. Again, Governor
Thomas said your sheep in 1892 were
worth 81, 153 107. Governor West in his
report to the same department for
1898, says you have 1,374S36 sheep.
The Democrats are in control, and