Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1894-03-17

wool. Drawing general conclusions
from these premises, the writer in that
editorial makes many unwarranted
assertions: ~ with wool on the
free list, our native wool will advance
because of the impetus given to the
WOODEN trade thereby, and from the
fact that it will take the place of shod-
dy." (2) Australian wool cannot
come into competition with domestic
WOOL because it is only used to mix
with in making the finer grades. 4"
81 1.-The Mckinley bill with its ex-
orbitant rate of duties, has been
dismal failure, because it has never
been as low as it now is" (4) 1.-The
passage of the Wilson bill will increase
the demand for WOODEN goods, and
thereby the demand for wool and labor
required TO make them" 60 There
can be no reasonable doubt but that
the action of the Republican manufac-
turefs in stopping their mills and cut
ting down wages is part and parcel of
a huge conspiracy to defeat tariff
bill. 4"
1t is my purpose to answer these
reckless and unwarranted assertions
and let a sensible public decide for it
self whether these claims are not false.
History shows that wool has never adj
vanced when on the free list, except
when some unusual, exceptional agen-
cy has been at work. Mckinley raised
the duty OH all kind Of wool, especial
ly on shoddy, the cast-off titbits of
rags, etc, and its importation in one
year fell from 4,4oI, oo4 pounds, to
5S4,I72; in value from SI,8If,625 to
$226, 100, the difference i'll value of
which went into the farmers pockets
and increased by that amount his pro-
duction. Under the Wilson bill shod-
dy will come in free, aud instead of us
ing good American wool, as our friend
intimated, more shoddy will be CON
sumed. The 80 cents per pound tar
if in the Mckinley bill on shoddy
should remain, thereby decreasing i'm
portation, and increasing the demand
for wool. And if it be true that wool
will advance by the impetus given to
the wool trade, how can Mr.. Dunn pay
more for that wool and yet decrease
the cost of the article into which it en-
tiers? How can he use fine wool to
make his goods cheaper, and free wool
to enable him to pay the American
/ farmer more j01- his le00k, and yet,
with conditions and price of labor un-
changed, reduce his price IS per cent?
Then, if protection has lowered the
price of wool, what becomes of the old
Democratic shibboleth THE tariff is
tax added to the price of an article
and paid by the consumer ?" Please
answer these questions, and do so fully
for we are anxious and eager to dis
cuss each thoroughly
We deny emphatically that Austria
liam wool is necessary to mix with
other wool to make finer grades, and
that it does not compete with our do
nestle wool Facts and figures refute
such twaddle The finest and sound
est wool ever raised in any part of the
world has been and is raised from Sax
ony sheep in the section of this coun-
try where the rivers flow toward the
Ohio Valley. 1t has decreased because
the American wool-growers cannot
compete with those of Australia. The
American Consul at Sydney, New
South Wales, CIV. Griffith, in his re-
port to the Department of State,
March rs, 1891, says: The samples
Of American woods, and especially
those grown in the State of Ohio, sent
to the Melbourne International Expo
sition, were admitted by experts to
be far superior to anything of the kind
ever grown in these colonies The
Boston Journal of Commerce, a free
trade journal No. 2I6, July 9, 1892,
says: The character of American
Heeces h a s always been specially
adapted to the production of durable
fabrics, unequalled for wearing quail
ties by any foreign goods, when man
ufactured under equally favorable con-
ditions.' Why, then, should any be
imported? Why not produce all here2
One more quotation on this point;
Switzler's L. S. Treasury Department
Wool Report, 1887, says; at is the
current popular opinion that English
and Australian wool surpasses the
American in quality, but the reverse
is true. American wool and American
manufactures excel those of the rest
of the world " This is one w. F. /
Switzler, the free trade chief of the /
Bureau of Statistics in the Treasury
Department under President Cleve-
land. But why cite further Democrat
&c authority,o on 50 plain proposition.
1t 1t were even true-as it is not
that some foreign woods were neces-
sary to give the required finish, 4" it
is better to sacrifice the foreign style
than the American wool industry. If
American citizens wish the foreign /
finish and prefer to patronize foreign |
wool-growers rather than our own, il /
will be no misfortune if they be re-
quired to pay liberal tariff for the |
privilege. The American people must I
have a certain amount of wooden and !
worsted goods. With a tariff suffi- |
Gent to exclude all foreign woods, our
wool-growers would supply the whole /
demand. A market for all is better |
for our wool-growers than market |
for part. Millions of pounds of Aus
tralian wool come in now in competi- /
ton with ours, even under the Nc /
Kinley rates. This should not be so.