, 1900-02-15
THE ARGENTINE TREATY.

of this state, for the reason that it
on hides and wool. In his opposition
to the treaty the senator urged many
strong arguments that simply could
not be answered. He is without doubt
the best posted man upon the stock
business in the United States senate.
1t will be perhaps recalled that when
the Dingley bill was under considera-
tion he took the lead in discussing the
wool schedule and at that time the
New York Journal of Commerce re-
marked that Warren would finally
write the wool tariff no matter what
interviewed" 1t has fallen to him to
make the principal fight upon the Ar
gentine treaty. .l
The treatey is Objectionable for the
reason that it is not apparent that
there is anything of particular value in
the concession to the United States, or
that the export trade of the country
would be materially increased in any
particular line.
AS to hides and wool imported to
this country from Argentine. no reason
or apology is given for the reduction
Of 20 per cent, and they are the items
given the most prominence in the
treaty and suffer the largest reductions.
Not a word of or explanation
has been submitted to support it. not
w%ithstanding its effects reach every
farmer throughout the United States
who is a breeder Or owner of neat cat
tie. Every person owning a COW is
reached to some extent by this reduc-
ton. Mr.. Kasson, who negotiated the
treaty, reports on the authority of Mr.
Buchanan, the United States minister
at Buenos Ayres (reported as n hold
over and free wool democrat). that not
n bag more of Argentine wool will he
shipped to this country after the re-
duction than before. and the question
naturally arises. WHY reduce? The
statement is made from the same ALL
thority that there are but a few mill
lion pounds of wool sent from Araen-
tine to the United States and largely
of coarse or Garnet woods This state
ment is criticized by other author
tiles. indeed it is criticized as beins
dangerously ]oneou Argentine has
more than twice the sheen and is the
present season raising more than
twice the wool produced nv the limited
States. She is easily second country
in the world in her wool nroduct and
it is a debatable question whether tho
present season she will not take FIRST
place. even exceeding Australia II we
give 20 per cent reduction OF the wool
tariff to Argeptipe-tbe second ~ NOT
the first largest wool erower-wbat
shall we do with Great Rritain whose
colonies are first or at least second in
amount of wool grownp' No govern
ment gives us as fair "A mort for tho nro-
ducts of our country as Great Britain.
How Their can we agree with the IN
importsnt government of Argentine
that she shall have the 20 per cent re-
auction on wool hecause We cot , fow
paltrv reductions in her extraordinary
high tariff against us and tben rof,,so
England. who let's us in with everv-
thing free. when she asks us for a %
per cent or even larger reduction in
wool from her domain
The result then would he a reduction
of the wool tariff all around. loosen
ing the kew to the arch of nrotective
tariff, and that too without an aa,ust-
ment of other features of the tarir to
correspond and keep it symmetrical
For instance. the rule is as To woods
and woolens. -four times the tariff ner
pound on cloth than is carried on wool:
hence a reduction on wool would carry
a reduction on woolens.
The farmer, he agriculturist has
but little / in the general tariff which an
plies to the fruits of his toll. and the
great majority OF all the farmers in the
United States are producers to a great
er or less extent of sheen and cattle
and are therefore reached by a reduc-
tion Of tariff on hides and wool. Thew
do no want this treaty. =