Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1894-06-22
THE WOOL TARIFF AGAIN.

THE WOOL TARIFF AGAIN.
Senator Dolph, of Oregon, in a speech
made before the senate last week, gave
some interesting facts of the wool grow.
ing industry in Oregon, which are ap.
plicable to the conditions of all of the
western wool-growing states. Mr.. Dolph
began by quoting that part Of President
Cleveland's first tariff reform message,
where the president argued in favor OF
free wool, as follows:
think it may be fairly assumed that a
large proportion of the sheep owned by the
farmers throughout the country are found
in small hocks numbering from twenty
ported wool which these sheep yield, is 10
cents each pound if Of the value of 30 cents
or less, and 12 cents if of the value of more
than 30 cents. If the liberal estimate of
six pounds be allowed for each fleece, the
duty thereon would be 80 or u cents, and
this may be taken as the utmost enhance
ment of its price to the farmer by reason of
this duty. Eighteen dollars would thus
represent the Increased price of wool from
twenty-five sheep, and S36 that from the
wool of hfty-sheep; and at present values
this addition would amount to about one
third of its price.
Now applying this estimate Of the de-
crease in value of wool under free trade,
which, it will be seen, is practically ad-
mitted, to the hocks of Oregon, ~statisti-
cally and specifically, and to all of the
woolgrowing states, generally: Eighteen
dollars the president estimates as the
loss at the then price Of wool upon the
product of twenty-five sheep; $36 as the
loss on the product of a flock OF fifty
sheep; s72 as the loss on the product Of
100 sheep. Now, take larger focks, and
reach the owners Of the focks in Oregon,
the men who are interested and engaged
in this great industry there. The presi-
dents estimate would mean a loss of
s720 per annum on 1000 sheep, of $1,000
per mum on 10000 sheep, of Sl75,0OO
per annum on the focks in Oregon,
estimated at about 100000, and upon
the product of the sheep in the United
States, at the presidents estimate, the
loss would be over S3,50O,O0O per n
Now, as seems peculiar to the present
tariff measure, this loss fall directly upon
the farmers and wool growers of the
nation. 1t 10 just SO great an amount
deducted from their purchasing power,
and, aside from this, is a blow at the
wool industry which will cripple it to
such an extent that the indirect loss will
be still greater. No adequate return in
the way of cheaper clothing will be made
to the losers, for the sum total of the
loss would be greater than the whole
amount of WOODEN clothing purchased by
them altogether-even at the present
prices.
Again, it is we'll known that a great
quantity OF the wool product OF the west
is grown at a distance from railroad and
water transportation, which adds to the
expense of it's production, it being neces-
sary to transport it by teams. No lessen
ing can be made in this expense by the
placing of wool on the free list. Senator
Dolph's argument is an able one, and he
expresses truly the attitude of the pres.
ent tariff measure to the wool industry
in Oregon, and in other states when be
says:
The industry can not be prosecuted with
profit. 1t must be remembered that what
ever reduction there is made in the price
of wool comes from the profit OF the indus
try. When President Cleveland was argu-
ing that the loss to the farmer by putting
wool on the free list would be small, not
more than one-third of the value of the
product, he forgot hat the expense of
raising wool would be just the same, that
the value of the land would continue the
same, that the cost of feeding the sheep
would be the same, that the cost of shear
ing and marketing the product would be
the same, so that the whole loss caused by
the depreciation in the price would come
out of the profits Of the industry; and, with
WOOL at the price it will be if this bill
passes and wool is placed upon the free
list, l repeat, the wool growing industry in
the state of Oregon will be doomed.