Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1900-02-03

peCldlly OlIeIlSlVS 10 Tie uOlilcSllC "ooi
grower, as it actually makes a present
to the wooden manufacturer of an I'M
needed 20 per CEN reduction in the du-
ties upon his raw material at the cost
Of the wool grower without any COM
pensatory benefit to him of any kind
whatever. 1t disarranges and throws
entirely out of balance the principles
upon which schedule *. was built.
namely, that the compensatory duty
upon a pound of cloth should be four
times the duty upon one pound OF UNI
washed wool. This treaty reduced the
duty upon unwashed wool and makes
no corresponding reduction in the com
~pensatory duty upon a pound of cloth,
and the practical effect of 1T Is that 1t
actually increases the compensatory
duty upon manufactures of wool 20 per
duty upon manufactures of wool from
four times (Which the law intended to
impose) to five times the duty upon one
pound of unwashed wool of the first
ldSS. " q Ia
Justify this? Would not the wool
grower of the United States have just
cause to feel outraged, and If he feels
outraged, how can his support for the
Republican party be looked for? A
wool grower would really have the right
to feel thai he was deeply injured in
the house of his friend. The faithful
sentries that are depended upon to
ually assist those enemies through the
lines and into the wool growers camp.
This is the situation and the view
of it that will be taken by the wool
growers Of the United States. Can the
Mckinley administration for one mo-
ment permit such a situation?
SCHEME OF IMPORTERS.
The friends of this reciprocity meas
ure, mostly aliens, claim that they have
knowledge of the presidents personal
approval of the treaty, openly declar-
| ing that 1t has been sent to the senate
with the request that that body vote for
its confirmation. This the president
could not have done unless he had
been grossly misinformed as to the in
1uence of this treaty upon the welfare
of a very large class of our citizens,
| the class who above all others was so
cruelty and %crushingly injured by the
Grover Cleveland administration. How
can any Republican favor such a meas-
ure when Mckinley represents the op-
posite extreme of what Grover Cleve-
land stood for? He stood for free wool
and free raw material; Mckinley stood
for protected wool.
Argentine wool in large quantities
has been bought in the republic and is
now in transit here. 1t has been ship
ped by aliens who, are offering it for
sale as a great and tempting bargain,
with the assurance that they have in
side information that this treaty will
be put through the senate.
Aside from the injustice of forcing
throats Of the wool growers of this
country through the legal opportunity
offered to the administration at "a time
when those who will be injured by 1t
are in total Ignorance of it's effect upon
their interests or indeed Of its exist
ence, its disastrous and perilous in
iuence upon the Republican party
should be considered.
The ignominy that the Democratic
party suffered from its free wool ex-
pertinent should be a warming and an
example. The revulsion Of feeling re-
sulting from the reduction of wool du-
ties will drive out of the party, those
wool growing Democrats who entered
Its ranks reluctantly and in doubt in
1896. They will claim that they have
been betrayed and have been treated
worse than they were by their own par
ty, which was openly and avowedly for
free wool, while the Republican party
was equally pronounced in favor of pro-
tected wool. They will claim that this
Is worse than Democratic tariff reduc-
ton because 1T gives unneeded and in
defensible increased protection to the
WOODEN manufacturer, while at the
same time 1t decreases the protection
to the wool grower who was so recently
h~arrassed and oppressed by the free
wool experiment.
The woods that come from the Argen-
tine Republic are skirted woods. They
pay only the same duty that was pro-
vided for woods that contained the
skirts. This industry cannot bear the
slightest reduction in the duty upon
skirted woods. 1t would be more equit-
able to increase it were it practicable,
which experience has shown 1t is not.
Many Democrats voted with the Re-
publican party at the last election be-
cause OF their disgust with Grover
Cleveland's free wool experiment. A
great many more, and many Of whom
had once been Republicans, voted for
Bryan because they believed that the
imitation Of prices that would come
through the free coinage OF silver
would raise prices for wool more rap
idly and more permanently than any
tariff could do 1t.
USED BY SILVER SPEAKERS.
Senator Teller and those who follow
ed his teachings, used this argument
with good effect in the former Republic
can wool growing states of Colorado,
Montana, idaho and Nevada, with the
result that the electoral vote Of thes G
states was given to Bryan. The sub
stantdal benefits already apparent to
the wool industry through the Dingley
tariff act, although the latter has as
yet exerted only 75 per cent Of It's price
lifting effect. have opened the eyes Of
many Of these people. and II the pres.
emit Dingley tariff act is permitted 10
rorNtinnia until A hlaa had a moderately