The herald., 1894-10-28

An examination OF prices hsretofore pre-
vailing ia California demonstrates be-
yond cavil or controversy that wool has
been higher here under q low tariff
than under the enormously increased
duty. We do not produce the finest
grades OF wool. III we were able to inn
port sufficient quantity of foreign MAJ
terial of q better quality, NE could
afford to pay the domestic producer
more remunera.ivo figure, but il the
issue is to be made between the sheep
and the man; If it be question
whether we shall have fewer sheep
and cheaper clothing, or dear
er clothing and more Sheep
l confess l must favor that policy which
will result in human comfort. Thiss
however, ia not the issue as UNDER
stand it. The policy advocated by the
Democracy will result in the production
OF wool. No policy can make wool
growing more Improbable than it IL
under prevailing conditions"
The views thus expressed in 1892, and
with which my fellow citizens were fa-
milar when l was elected 70 the senate,
have been confirmed by my legislative
experience and by the arguments OF our
opponents. California wool growers who
lean towards protection do 80 upon the
theory that they will profit by tariff
in this, that the price Of wool will be
appreciated az the result of that sort Of
legislation. l say that history provea
this statement to be fellaciouB. If in
creased protection was OF any value wool
ought to have been worth $1.50 per
pound in the days OF exultant McKin-
leyism. We all know that the preva-
lence Of extreme protection had no such
effect, but 1 wish to call the attention
OF my friends on the other side to the
circumstance that it was never intended
, hat high protection should 80 result
There is no better authority upon this
topic than the learned and distinguished
senator from Massachusetts, Mr.. HoRr,
who said Gong. Rec. 1894. p. 1898:
1.-THE American manufactures of wool
and woolens very much prefers the duty
on wool to free wool, because he knows
not only that it is just to another in
dustry, but he knows also that with Z
duty on American wool, wool is "a be
cheapened in the end to him by Amer
ican competition"
Again be says: Next, it Is against
our highest Helf-interest, because We
claim that the protective duty on tiIs
American wool will, in the end, while
raiser, bring down the price OF Ameri-
can wool and the price Of the America
manufactured articles made of wool..s'
Is it for this that the wool growers OF
California are striving today? Are they
advocating 9 policy for the purp ose o.
making wool cheaper? Are they not
denouncing Democrats for removing tha
tariff and permitting foreign oampeti-
ton and thus. as they asy. making wool
cheaper? But Senator Hosr Rye that
high protection will make wool cheaper.
II follows that the opposite p slicy will
increase the price of wool. The Demo-
cratic theory, az l have air eady ex-
pressed it, ie that our local wool will be
worth more under free wool, because we
will be able TO bring here that wool OF
longer staple than we now raise, and
which, mingled with our o'Hn product,
will permit uH to manufac ture cloth
which we cannot now prodrlce.
1t 10 certain that we Californiana have
been unsuccessful in wool ,nenufacturee
under a most exorbitant tariff. Expe-
iience is q teacher of no mean i'm pnr-
tance. IL demonstrates that high tariff
does not mean high priceb for our woot
The new tariff bill went into effect in
ths very last days of AuEust. Did wool
drop in American markets? No, it has
appreciated. Foreign woods Of the
highest grades have, OF couree, been re-
duced in value here 80 that the con-
sumer can now buy tho finest quality Of
Australian wool at far less price than
he could before. A reference to tbs
New York quotations is sufficient to
meet this proposition. Thus foreign
wool is quoted: