Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1900-02-03
Wool Growers, Attention!
Strong Argument By Henry Justice Against Ratification
Of Pending Treaty With Argentine Republic Reducing
Duties on Certain Woods 20 Per Cent.

lIle AISellllIlt TepuDllC HOW peliuluS
in the United States senate, is pub
lished at the request of the Wool Grow
ers' association of this territory; it il
prepared by Mr.. Henry Justice, of Phil
adelphia, an expert and authority on
wool and the wool trade:
The American wool industry is men,
aced with very serious injury by the
proposed reciprocity treaty with the
reduce the Dingley tariff wool iuties
20 per cent, or in other words, lower
the present rate, which was the same
as the Mckinley rate, from lie PER
pound to s S-10c per pound, and this
reduction is to be made before :hy
Dingley tariff act has had a chance to
fairly act.
Up to this time only rs per cent of
the price lifting effect of the Dinglay
tariff act has been felt. American
wool must still be 25 per cent higher
than today's quotations to equal the
cost of foreign wool imported under
the present tariff act. The reason why
the present tariff act is not yet full in
force is because we are not importing
much wool and are still using up the
three years wool supply imported in
anticipation Of the Dingley tariff act.
This great surplus of free wool has not
yet all been consumed, and yet the
wool industry is assailed by a PROPOSE
ton emanating from the Mckinley
administration to reduce wool duties
20 per cent.
A measure thus leaning one-fifth of
the way toward free wool, ~emanating
from this administration, and inflict-
\ ing serious hurt to the wool growing
| industry, could not possibly become a
law through the vote of the represen-
| tatives OF the people in congress if
| both branches eel given the oppor-
| tunity to %legislate upon the interests
Of their constituents.
If his reduction of duties is legally
sneaked through under more or less
obscure treaty provisions, it's effect
will be injurious to and will give Of
Tense to the cry best friends of the
Mckinley administration.
That nothing has been heard of the
| subject so far, is due alone to the fact
! that the wool growers are in total ig-
| norance of their impending peril. In
/ view of the fact that this reduction in
4 wool duties could not possibly be ac-
oomplished through a vote of both
branches of the present congress,
| while the same result is arrived at by
| means of a treaty, it would be regard
| ed by the wool growers of the United
States and would be justly 50 regard
ed, as an insidious method of injuring
them, as it's accomplishment in this
| names gives them no chance to de-
ferd themselves against such an in
| furious measure.
How is this to be defended by the
| present administration or it's friends?
| President Mckinley stands above all
others as the champion Of protection,
and particularly and especially of pro-
| lection for the wool-growing industry,
| which of all others has sustained more
cruel and crushing injury at the hands
of Grover Cleveland's administration of
| the government.
POLITICAL RESULTS MAY FOLLOW
A very moderate change in the pop
ular vote in the wool growing states of
Maryland, West Virginia, Indiana,
1 K pntI1nkv a ND nraUnr would aua 90 "
| ried the electoral vote for Mr.. Bryan.
Our party could never have succeeded
in 1896 but for the change, by the cut
ting loose from their old allegiance, of
many Democratic wool growers in
these states who rushed to President
McKinley's support. If those who thus
changed their votes had voted for Bry-
an, the latter would now have been
president Of the United States.
1t is doubtful whether Mr.. Mckinley
would be able to carry those states
again in the coming campaign If the
Dingley wool duties are reduced by the
smallest fraction. On the other hand,
If the president call back this treaty
on the ground that it will infiict SER
ious Injury to the American wool in
dustry that was SO badly damaged by
the free wool experiment of Grover
Cleveland, and will give some motor
iety to this reason for his action, these
same states will be carried again for
the Republican party in 1900 with sure
ty, and in all probability such action
now would also carry quite a number
Of those other wool growing states
whose popular vote in 1896 was cast for
Mr.. Bryan, surely the states of Wyo-
ming, South Dakota, Nevada, and prob
ably Montana and Idaho, with a remote
chance OF Virginia and Missouri, every
n Of them wool growing states and
large producers of the class Of wool ex-
ported from the Argentine Republic,
would support McKinley's administra-
ton In 1900 If this Argentine wool re-
duction treaty Is recalled. If this Is
not done, it is doubtful whether the
Republican party can carry enough of
these states in 1900 to give them a plu-
ldiity vi VllC ClCCCOIul VOuts Lie dp.
prevail of this reciprocity treaty by this
administration would be the overthrow
Of the very principle which President
Mckinley has established. 1t would
be a reversal of the principle upon
which the campaign Of 1896 was largely
conducted, namely, protection for AM
erican wool and other similar indus
tries. 1t would be Justly regarded by
the wool growing interests, as well as
by many other protectionists, as a
breach Of faith on the part OF President
Mckinley or the party which he rep
resents. No other view could be taken
Of it, and 1t would be especially often
sive coming from an administration
that was elected as the very embod1-
ment Of the idea Of protection to the
American wool industry.