The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1894-02-02

reputable wooden manufacturer will claim II
is true, and from the fact that the stock Of
sheep of In Australia Is Of American origin
and from the best fine wool strains In the
United States, disposes of the theory that II
Is In the breed. At the Centennial EXPOSE
ton In competition with foreign makes the
medal was awarded to a mill at Germantown,
Pa, for the finest and best yarn. A mem
Der Of the international jury of awards at
the Columbian Exposition, an Australian
named Latzke. In his testimony before the
Ways and Means committee said of the
American exhibits of wooden manufactures,
he found that In quality, style and finish
they were excellent and able to compete
with the finest of goods manufactured any
where. No talk Of any necessity for foreign
woods to make the hest fabrics, because that
would have been absurd In the face of the
exhibit at Chicago, and from the fact that
the wool of the Middle States of the United
States is the equal of anything grown in the
world. Australian wool Is often uneven
and weakened In fibre because of the pro-
lODged drouths In that country. Mr..
Latzke In arguing for free wool In this
country from an Australian standpoint said
that 1t couli be raised cheaper there than
here, and that was the only condition upon
which argument can be made by any one
posted on the question.
The second argument Of the free wool ad-
vocate is that the farmer and wool grower
has been humbugged into voting for policy
that has continually lowered the price Of
wool.
The third is that the tariff has compelled
the use of shoddy in the manufacture of
goods.
We have recently seen the latter two
argued together, although the
logic of the two conditions If both were
true Is scarcely clear. If a tariff makes
wool cheap 1t would seem that manufact-
srs would use more wool as 1t grew cheaper,
DR. at least would not want free wool,
which, by inference, would maze Ameri-
IAN wool higher in price. Just how
cheap wool ought to be in order to have
he manufacturer use the most shOddy
S question for the free wool advocates.
The average manufacturer uses the cheapest
material that will answer his purpose and if
/ tariff on wool brings down the price of
WOOL every manufacturer would be in favor
# the tariff. The fact is that the two prop
,sitiOns set forth can not both be true and
neither may be. The increase of tariff on
WOOL given by the Mckinley bill was scarce
y in force before an overwhelming demo
ratio majority In the house Of representa-
ives was elected through the grOsssst mis-
representation. Then 1t was the laboring
mans coat that was taxed because of the woe
ariff; now the tariff by reducing the price
# wool, that coat is no longer taxed, but is
made of shoddy because wool is cheap.
Then followed the election of Cleveland and !
he full control of the government by par
y pledged to abolish the tariff on wool. |
III wool last year was bought on free |
rade basis and the charge that the low price |
0w Is caused by the Mckinley bill Is as |
ntrue as 1t IL transparent In statement.
The same foresight that actuates the aver
&c editor to get himself in position to get
Ostoffice is not lacking In the manufacturer
rho proposes to suit himself to prospective
Dnditions. Business is such sensitive
natter 1t is disturbed by even the slightest
Movement, and the present time has pre-
AIRED for the blow that must come. There
not reputable sheep grower 10 Shiawas-
e county who is In favor of the reduction
the tariff on wool; there is not a reputable
yricultural paper in the United States that
lvOrs free wool. There is not q reputable
an in the United States except Southern
en and Northern men with Southern prin-
pies that wants or advocates free wool.
he South seeks to extend the use and en-
,nce the price Of cotton at the expense of
DOL grown in the North, and Is fortunate in
wing some men who are disloyal to their
yn country to aid them.