West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1894-10-11
MORE OBJECT LEssoNsroa FARxEIs.
A Reply TO Mr.. J. J. Mckinney In
the Journal OF Last Week.

Mr.. Joseph j. Mckinney OF near
Reedsyllle this county published
what he called an "0bject Lesson
In Wool" and calls upon us to
"please arise and explain" which
we take great pleasure in doing.
In the first place Mr.. Mckinney
lays special stress on ".his the first
year Of free trade" aud "party per-
fidy and party dishonor.' Ia this
lie showes gross ignorance of the
situation. The party perfidy and
dishonor" applies, las every body
knows) to those so-called Demo-
cratic Senators, who by acting and
voting with the Republicans, pre-
vented the &C mplete fulfillment of
the Democratic pledges. The Re-
publicans to be consistent should
welcome these men with open arms,
as acting perfectly honest and hon
ora5le, according to their views of
the matter. The "dishonor" part
OF it comes in very bad taste from
them. But we waive all this and
get right down to business. Mr..
Mckinney claims that he had about
500 pounds of wool this year which
he sold under "free trade prices"
at l55 cents per pound whereas
under the Mckinley law he sold
the same quality of wool for 30
cents per pound. He uses this as
AN illustration Of the difference be-
tween the Mckinley bill and the
new tariff bill or free trade in wool.
Right here we desire Mr.. McKin-
ney to "arise' and answer few
plain questions.
Don't you know that You sold
your wool this year at 1853 cents
per pound umdcr tie mckinley BUI2
And don't you know nOU that if
you had held it till the Democratic
tariff bill went into effect, YOU
could have gotten much better
price for 1t?
We advised our farmers time and
again through the columns of this
paper, to hold their wool till the
Mckinley Bill could be repealed,
but the most of them and Mr..
Mckinney among them, took the
advice Of the Republican calamity
howlers and sold in the lowest mar.
ket we have ever had.
Will Mr.. Mckinney dare to de-
ny this? Will he dare to deny
that wool began to decline imme-
dlately after the passage of the
Mckinley Bill and kept on going
down, down till 1T reached The
lowest price ever known And
then began to rise Immediately
after the pass &c of the new tariff
bill? Every farmer in this county
who has had wool to sell the past
four years, knows that tins is true,
and no amount of lying or mis-
representation can make him be-
lieve otherwise.
MIR. Mckinney says that under
the Mckinley law he sold the same
quality OF wool for 50 cents per
pound. We demand of HIM to
give the date and the name of the
party he sold to and whether for
trade or cash. Otherwise we shall
believe he is lying, and if he ever
got that price under the Mckinley
bill. it was Immediately after it's
passage, and before tie lotion
dropped ont of the market, as it
did. Again he claims that the
difference between the price be re-
ceiyed for his wool and lambs this
year and the year he received 81
cents for his wool amounts to $179.
icy, enough to pay his taxes for
seven years. lie offers this as an
'object lesson" to the farmer in
favor of Protection as against free
trade, when the whole business &C.
cordlng to his own statement, takes
place under the effects Of the Nc
kinley Bill.
1t is indeed an object lesson to
the farmer and one that we desire
to impress very forcibly upon them.
Again this gentleman, who is not
very well posted and evidently reads
nothing but the JOUrHal or N. Y.
Iribpne or Toledo Blade, and
probably lost heavily on his wool
this year by taking the advice Of
these calamity howlers and selling
too soon, winds up his article by
calling on us TO explain (Which is