The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-06-15
FREE WOOL.

cent. al yaiorem on wool Under the
Mckinley tariff wool, first and second
class. is protected by duty Of IL cents
and IL cents pound. while the third
class Is protected by duty OF 50
per cent. Under the proposed Wilson
tariff bill wool Is placed on the free list
On Wednesday last Sherman made Wig
orous speech against free wool, and the
PopuIIss Senator PETER has proposed an
amendment restoring the 50 per cent. duty
on raw wool.
Sherman denounced free wool As the
eliminating strocity OF the Wilson bill
He said that the sheep raising and wool
growing industry was common to greater
or less extent TO every state and territory.
It vas certain, he said. that the United
States could not compete in the produc-
ton OF wool with Australia. Argentine and
other countries where sheep raising was
the principal industry. Unless some gov
eminent aid was given the farmers OF the
United States they must abandon the field.
Senators Dubois and snoup. OF Idaho.
and Senator Hansbrough. of North Dakota.
also opposed free wool, as did Mitchell, OF
Oregon. shoup contended that the fall
IN the price of wool had been world wide
for twenty years, and in the United States
il ruled higher than elsewhere by the
amount Of the duty levied; that free wool
would ruin the industry in the United
States. Mitchell, Of Oregon, argued that
the Pacific coast would be more injuriously
affected by free wool than any other part
of the country. Free wool meant absolute
destruction to the wool growing industry
of Oregon, an industry which had grown
20 be of vast importance to the state.
large portion of Oregon was more useful
for sheep grazing than for any other pur-
pose.
Senator Frye. of Maine, declared that
Australia could produce enough WOO! TO
supply the entire consumption of the
United States Australian wool, he said,
could be laid down in New York for 5
cents per pound, yet it was the deliberate
intention of the Democratic majority to
subject every farmer IN the United States.
whether he fed his sheep six months of
the year in Maine or allowed them to run
wild all the year round in Texas. to such
an annlhilatory competition from Aus
tralia.
The Populist senators. Kyle. of South
Dakota. aud Allen. of Nebraska, are also
opposed to free wool.
These senators are right in their oppo-
sItion to n tariff which proposes to tax
sugar and place wool on the free list, just
as the Mills bill did. The American peo-
pie consume annually nearly $50, 0oo, 600
pounds of raw wool. Under the increased
protection of the Mckinley tariff of 1890
| in the year 1898 there were in the United
States AZ ,273, 553 sheep. producing 364. 1885,
666 pounds of wool on the unwashed
basis. including pulled wool from sheep
slaughtered for market, etc. or fraction
over one-half of all consumed in this
country. The imports of WOODS in the
fiscal year 1898 were as follows:
Pounds
| Class Raw wool, chiefly merino =. 43.3il, 56j
/ Wool In wool manufactures ......... Us,0OO 90
| Class 2-Chieliy the long wools........ 6,7Sd,20
/ Class 3-Cheapsr WOODS. which include
carpet aud coarse clothing woods. -. IL, SSeo7S
Total imports. ..................... 90. ass SIS
Domestic product as stated. 80, i56 6SS
Total consumption, 1899 csc. $40, "a
| These figures are cited by William Law
renee. president of the National Wool
/ Growers Association, who says:
Nov u)n American wool growers can
| produce al the woods needed IN this coun-
| try. and ca if American wool manufact-
urers can manufacture all wooden goods
| needed, the result would be that our pres
| ent number OF sheep would be increased
| from 81, ,a5S in 1895 20 about lis, 0Oo. COO
| and instead OF paying SIS. 000. 900 for foreign
WOODEN goods Gil would be made BY our
own manufacturers.
II the present duties OF the Mckinley
Law on wooden goods we're permitted 10
remain undisturbed. in three years our
manufacturing industry would be snfii.
GENTLY increased to produce alt needed
wooden manufactures. There are no for.
eign woods essential to the manufacturer
in the production OF fine fabrics, nor is il
true that but a small proportion of i'm
| ported woods compete with our DOMESTIC
woods. The imports of 1888 were: Raw
merino, Is. 81. SIS pounds; wooden manu-.
features, 100000 pounds. and class 81
woods. g ~, 30, or a total OF I64,o ito
pounds. not small proportion. With
free wool, the foreign low free wool price
would iix the price for all our woods made
into clothing goods. American wool
growers are Just as much injured by i'm.
ports in manufactures as in raw wool
Mr.. Lawrence says;
"With adequate protection this country
would soon have what 10 needs. 90 Go OF
Merino sheep. 30 COOS 600 of the long WOO
mutton breeds and =. co 600 Of common
coarse and mixed grades Of sheen. II We
had this number Of sheep our wool grow.
ers could not avoid producing sil she
carpet wool needed Tor the manufacture OF
carpets. About one-eiEhth OF every fleece
of the mutton breeds IS coarse. hairy
wool; the belly hip lock- aud 'hreech
wool - suitable only for, and used for
coArse carpets.
The secretary Of agriculture in letter,
February 8. ISso, said:
As 20 carpet woods. the principal reason
why tkev have no, been produced in sur
feient quantities Is because they have
been Disseminated against in tariff rates
The evidence - abundant that with far
/ protection our wool growers would soon
produce al needed CARPET wools lSenais
Mis-. Zee. No s., pages Is 90 So"
It's an error 20 suppose that the WOO. .
imported as third-class woods are all car.
Pet woods Most az them are used in an.
mAnafactars OF clothing goods, men,
wear. ladies' cloaks. etc, and come in
competition with or sappl&ns the use Of