The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-01-18

Among the Misrepresentation made
by opponents of free wool is the state
ment made in the first part of the fol-
lowing letter to the New York World,
which is effectually answered in the
latter part of the letter. We direct
attention to the facts it discloses:
Republican paper publishes this
morning dispatch stating that Mr.
Robert Bleakie, the prince of the
wooden mill owners, objects to free
wool at once, and because
Fully one-half of the wool needed
to clothe our people is imported and
it is fair to say that 80 per cent. of the
stock on hand in the mills throughout
| the country is foreign wool"
This statement is so far from being
accurate, in fact it is so conspicuously
inexact and Mr.. Bleakie is so lament
ably misinfermed, that I pray you to
permit me to correct him and to do
what I can to get the facts before him
and before the people
Our total importations of foreign
cloth wool, combing and clothing, for
the past fifteen years average under
3O,00O,000 pounds in the grease 1t has
never reached $4,000, 900 pounds. The
mills consumed in 1880 over 800 900. 900
pounds of raw material, and in 1885 over
l, 100000 600. of which less than 8 Der
cent. was imported. under 81 per cent.
was domestic wool and 20 per cent.
was shoddy, mungo, cotton and wood
fibre.
Our imports of foreign wool com
prise but 3 per cent. or even less than
) per cent of the raw material of our
wooden cloth mills. 1t is not so per
would be willing to grant for the sake
OF argument that it was per cent.
Mr.. Bleakie should revise his facts.
Here is another letter to the World
which is quite suggestive on the wool
question:
As you know, the price of American
wool has steadily declined ever since
the Mckinley bill was in force, and in
asmuch as the American wool cannot
be used except as it is mixed with for
eign WOOL did it ever strike YOU that
our wool manufacturers, who have the
matter all in their own hands. have
been taking the amount of tax they
were forced to pay on foreign wool off
the prices they paid for American.
which is the only way one can account
for the decline? Every one buys a.
cheap as he can, especially manufac-
turerS.
In regard to petitions which are pour
ing in from all parts of the country
to Washington in reference to the tariff
the Chicago Times remarks that they
ought not to sway a single vote. 1t
says:
THE more than 100000 voters who
gave their ballots to Benjamin Harri-
son, did so upon the issue of protection.
and their names, with those of their
dependents, might fill many ponder
Gus petition"
The New York World says ON this
subject:
Since reform is to come let it come
quickly. The people have demanded
relief, and they are entitled to it with
out needless delay. 1t is not the pros
pect Of tariff revision but the uncer-
tainty as to its precise character and
the time when it will take effect that
hurts business. When it is known
what the changes are to be and how
soon they are to take effect business
will quickly adjust itself to the new
conditions. The Republicans have re-
vised the tariff twenty times in thirty
years. They who have revised it so
often in the interest of monopolies
should consider themselves estopped
from Directing to one revision in the
interest of consumers
We have been asked by. several per-
sons Interested in the progress OF
events what it was that Mr. Carnegie,
the man of millions made in Pennsly-
vania under protective tariff. has to
say on the present movement for tar
if revision. Following is his letter to
the New York Tribune:
Sir-Upon the eve of sailing I should
like to say few words to my fellow