The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-01-24
AS TO FREE WOOL.

duty on foreign wool are some of them
very extreme, even ludiereus. They
can only see ruin to the sheep owners
and evil results to the country In a
petition to Congress recently adopted
in this enlightened region it was repre-
scented, as a plea for the retention OF
duty which has not kept UP the price
Eof domestic wool, that if the Wilson bill
should pass Utah wool would only be
worth about two cents a. poundl
The same kind of predictions were ut
tered years. ago in this country and
failed. They were also common in
England when free wool" was dis
cussed over there, and the very reverse
has been the consequence.
On this question we here introduce
some of the latest remarks of Mr.. Will
son himself which we believe will be
read with interest. Replying to Mr..
Mr.. Dingley on January II, 1894, he is
thus reported in the Congressional
Record:
Mr.. Wilson, of West Virginia. Mr.
Chairman, l listened with great in
terest, as l always do, to the speech OF
the gentleman from Maine QMr, Ding
Iley., knowing that he would present
the subject with an array of informa-
ton and acuteness of statement as
great as could be expected from any
advocate of the position which he
holds. But, sir, it seems to me that
1t is not necessary for US to go into
prophecy as to what is going to happen
with wool on the free list when we
have in the history of our own wool
tariff so many enlightening facts. 1t
is not for me to say whether the re-
moval Of the tariff on wool will in
crease the price of home wool or de-
crease the price of home wool, merely
as a. matter of prophecy, but holding
to the future the lamp of past exper-
fence, we can reach some persuasive
opinion as to the probable effect of
such action.
Mr.. Chairman, if there is any in
dustry in the United States that has
| been coddled and pampered and fav-
ored by the tariff it is the wool-grow-
ing industry / do not exaggerate
when l say that our whole tariff sys-
TEN in a large measure has been
grouped around that industry ever
since the famous compact of 1867 be-
tween the wool-growers and the wooden
manufacturers. Both were allowed
then and both have been allowed at
levery occurring revision of the tariff
since, to write their own duties and to
NIX the rates to suit their own Judgment
Of what their industries required. And
yet, sir, when we examine the history
! OF the increase in sheep raising we
! find that from 1867 to the present time
the production of sheep has Jagged
far behind the increase in numbers of
the other farm animals of the country
we have not as many sheep in 1894 as
we had in 1884
! [ have here the Statistical Abstract
for 1892, which shows that the number
OF oxen and cattle in this country to-
day is three times as great as the
number in 1868. The number of horses
today is three times as large as the
number in 1868. The number of mules
| is three times as large as it was in
1868. The number of cows is more
than twice as large as it was in 1868.
The number of swine is twice as large
as 1t was in 1868, whereas the number
OF sheep has increased only from 49,
991, 900 to a., 273,000 showing that, with
all the protection of a, high tariff, we
have failed to develop the sheep-grew-
ling industry of this country in pro-
portion to the natural growth of pop
ulation and the natural increase in
the number of other farm animals.
Now, Mr.. Chairman, 1 know that this
tariff on wool is worth a great deal
to the whole protective system. 1t
rs that particular provision in the tar
III by Which you have most indus
trlously sought to delude the farmer
and to secure. his support of the whole
system. But the advantage of the
tariff on wool to the farmer is some
thlng that no man has ever yet been
able to prove. applause ON the Demo-
cratic side) You invite the farmer to
furnish the banquet. and then you let
him wait on the table, and satisfy his
appetite with a smell of the yiands
upon It, daughter and applause on the
Democratic side) That is the only
dividend of protection which he gets
from the tariff upon wool
The gentleman from Maine, CMr.
Dingley), tells us that last year we
consumed 100000 pounds of clothing
wool and produced 500, 00O, 900 pounds of
that ourselves, importing the other $780,
uU0,O0O pounds 1t appears then, that
out of every 8 pounds that we used
we We're Obliged to import g. and al
though you have been pretending to
build up the Wool-growing industry for
thirty years by your tariff / find that
in 1860, out of every 10 pounds of wool
used in this country we We're able to
produce 6 pounds ourselves. (Applause
on the Democratic side) Where, then.
is the growth in this industry? Gen
tlemen on the other side argue as if
there had always. been a protective
tariff on wool; they speak as if we had
never had wool upon the free list. They
forget that when the tariff was re-
vised in 1857 all wool costing 20 cents
and less a pound abroad was put upon
the free list.
Mr.. Dingley. That was only carpet
wool. no clothing wool
Mr.. Wilson, of West Virginia. The
gentleman is mistaken; carpet wool
was not the only wool that cost 20 cents
q pound and less.
Mr.. Dingley. There was no clothing
wool that could be bought for that
price in 1860.
Mr.. Wilson. of West Virginia. Mr..
Chairman, l have the information be-
fore me, and join issue with the gem
tleman He is mistaken. Wool cost
ing 20 cents and less. per pound was
put upon the free list. and all wool
above that was dutiable. at "a per cent.
I invite gentlemen who wish to. get at
the facts of this matter to read a
speech made in this House in April
1850, by Governor Alexander Rice. OF
Massachusetts, which is a mine of in
formation on this subject
He showed from the market prices
quoted in his speech what had been
the consequence, not only as to wool
itself, but as to WOODEN, manufacturers
of the wool tariff of 1857 And he
xrrf4l -