The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986, 1894-07-07
20 FREE WOOL

S%enaror Roach replied to p ior'isf 'ot'''
vi min, ,hrou,h the Tribune, and ]
wisl. to disclai1n any intention o! i'm
]pusning his motives or integrity by h'S
vote on his revised Wilson bill. Whenever
that time may come.
From the tono Of Mr.. Reaches letter
he intends "to subserve the greatest i'll
dustrial possibility Of the state" by vot-
ing for free wool (?) whether it plenses
Grover Cleveland or not. He is con-
WINGED that protection on wool, that it
has gone down under the generous pro
lection afforded by the Mckinley BILL
and as q friend of the farmer and in the
wool growers interests he will vote free
wool. and whether it affects his influence
favorably or adversely with the president
cuts no figure. This is the substance of
his letter in the Tribune of June 9th. In
all this my friend Senator Roach assumes
to tell the sheep owners of North Dakota.
Ohio. Indiana, Montana and of every
DeIlc l,tJo III tlo lAAc shhho S'NS ~
know what Is good for the one industry
they lave nursed and studied all their lives.
That his judgment is superior to the
united experience, observation and in
vestigatlon of n hundred thousand men
whose interests are ut stake. and who are
supposed to know what is for Or against
them in the way of business success.
Mr.. Roach assumes no severity. He
does not intimate that in justice to the
consumer of wool, the producer should
forego the benefit of the tariff, as they
all did during the campaign of 1892.
when the democratic stump orator par
AIDED the sympathy of his party for the
poor man who could not afford a wooden
suit on account of the unconstitutional
and rubber tariff on raw wool.
If. as he says, under tariff protection
the price of wool $teadily declines. and
that under the Mckinley act "the price
of wool not only did not advance but fell
off" then surely the effect of the tariff.
according to his own logic, was precisely
what democracy cl,amoioned in 1892; and
that being tho case the only object he
can have i'll voting for free wool is to
enhance its price; but is dong that he
destroys the eastern promise of cheap
clothing.
But the judgement of the wool grower.
of America is against him and the logic
of history refntS his statements.
When the price of WOO went down in
the markets of the world our protective
duties could only maintain a relatively
higher price for wool here, and that it
sustained until the Chicago platform was
elected in 1882.
While the price of wool in London fell
off about so per cent. during the last two
years of Harrison's administration. it
depressed the wool market here but Z per
cent for the same period. while since the
democratic party has had absolute control
of the government, the price of wool has
remained about stationary in London, but
fell of here about 30 per cent.
Protection maintained a relatively
higher price for wool until democracy
came into power, pledged to it's absolute
repeal, since which wool fell to the free
trade basis in spite of the Mckinley act
Democratic accendancy naturally rendered
null and void existing duties ON wool
from tho fact that the party is pledged to
free trade. and the time that must elapse
between purchasing the raw material
and desposing of the finished article is sc
great, wooden manufacturers cannot afford
to pay more for wool than what it cost
laid down in New York from London.
Prior to the election of 1892. wool and
mutton was 4. very profitable industry
Wool sold on the Missouri slope, in the
grease. at from Is to % ceats per pound
and stock sheep from $3.50 to $500 pei
head. In 1898. wool dropped suddenly to
from z to 10 cents per pound, and sheer
went down accordingly. To-day, prices
on wool are still weaker and sheep sell al
from 81 to $3.50 n head.
Under tho profitable conditions pre-.
valling prior to 1893. Notwithstanding the
decline Ill the price of wool all over the
world. such was the business judgement
of North Dakotans, and such were the
favorable natural conditions for the sheen
industry, that, starting with less than
10000 sheep in 1888, we had nearly 10000
when the Chicago platform was elected
in 1892, and yet Mr.. Roach says, 'Wlth
proteced wool, 1t has not been possible to
subserve the industry in our state, OF any
other, for years past" There must be
some motivs in voting for free wool. 1t
seems strange that even "a United States
senator will vote for free wool tn enhance
its value against the protests of his con-
stituents. and the sheep raisers of the
whole country, or, if, as he says, the price
goes down under protective duties, and
that lis the very thing his party wants
cheap clothes for the poor man-why he
does o let it alone. There is a incon-