The Globe-republican., 1900-05-10
"D--NS" THE TARIFF.
CURSES THAT MAY COME HOME
TO ROOST.
Sentiments Not Likely Re shared by
Sheep RaIsers Who Have Prohted
Enormously Through the Restoration
of Protective Duties on Wool

Such Is the message Oh the E1el0 anu
Farm agricultural journal pub
1ished in Denver, Col, in response to
a request by the American Protective
Tariff league for information concern
ing the industry of sheep raising The
inquiry sent out by the tariff league
was follows:
Dear Sir: We are anxious to show
by reliable reports the actual effect OF
the Dingley tariff upon the industry OF
sheep raising Wool was upon the free
list under the Wilson free-trade tariff
and is now adequately protected by
the provisions of the Dingley tariff
Kindly fill out the blank spaces on
the reverse side of this card and re- |
turn the same to US at your earliest |
convenience.
held strictly confidential, and il no |
case will the figures furnished be used |
otherwise than making up the totals |
upon which general percentages are
to be computed. Yours very truly,
THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE
TARIFF LEAGUE.
Summarized returns of this investi-
cation will be printed in the American
Economist, and a copy mailed free to
persons furnishing reports"
Accompanying this inquiry was
Ieafet showing the effects of prOtec-
ton and free trade Tn wool growing
and sheep raising For example, from
1873 to 1882 inclusive, under the Nor
.r1l tarln the NUMBER Oh ShSSP
throughout the country increased by
over IL 900 0OO- Under the tariff OF
1888, in which the duties on wool
products were materially reduced, the
number of sheep decreased by about
5000, 900. With restored protection TO
wool through the Mckinley tariff OF
1890 the number of sheep increased by
nearly 1000 900. The Wilson tarlH,
with free trade in wool, practically
went into effect when Mr.. Cleveland
afnIU
iflocks throughout the country began
to decrease, and from '93 to go de-
creased by about 9,000,OOO The Ding
ley tariff reimpOsed the scient1hc
schedules of the Mckinley tariff, and
with the promise of protection through
the election of Mckinley and Repub-
lican congress the sheep industry i'm
,mediately began to advance From
1896 to and including 1898 the number
of sheep advanced by about thirteen
hundred thousand
The effect of protection and free
trade in regard to the number OF
sheep owned throughout the country
is not more Impressive than the effect
as to values. Under the Morrill, tarif
the lowest price per head was 5000
and the highest $2.55. Under the tarif
of 1893 the lowest price per head wa:
S1.91, and the highest price was 1927
Under the Mckinley tariff the loves
price was $2.49 and the highest pric
$3.50 Under free trade the loves
tprice was S15S and the highest pric
t$19 Under the Dingley tariff tn
highest price in the history of the ma
ton is overwhelmingly. S2-T5.
These facts of vital interest to tn
sheep raisers of Colorado and adjoin
ing states seem to have an inhamma
tory effect upon the editor OF Field an
Farm: Hence his Objurgatory re
Spouse, On the tariff and all il
fools!' Why? We do not know w
could not possibly have supposed tia
the citation of acts like those gleane
from official statistics and quote
above would operate the mind
the editor of Field and Farm re
rag operates on the sensibi1ities of
bull. and cause him (the editor)
lose his temper and fall to cursing Ill
"a drab.
We hardly think the sheep raise
of his section will join this Bryant
in dining the tariff Over the DO
der in Utah they will not be likely
echo his profane sentiment she'
raiser in Utah county, for exampl
will not "d-n the tariff for he 7
ports that whereas in 1896 CWilsc
free wool tariff) he owned 5000 she
of an average value of So per head
owned in March. 1900 Dingiey pr
tective tariff, II 900, of an avera
value of S4.25 per head
Sheep raisers in Chotaeu coun
Montana. do not "d-n the tariff
One of them reports that his flock b
increased from 1000 in 1896 to So
in 1900, and that the value per he
has Increased from $2.25 in 1896 to
in 1900.
From Bingham county in Ida
comes the statement from a farm
who owned 1900 sheep in 1896 a
now owns 5000; market value
1896. $3.50 per head. market value
1900 So per head
Reports from Colorado ey
more impressive \ Trinidad man n
has 5000 sheep. against 5000 fl
years ago, and their present value
$3.50 per head against a value of 81
per head in 1896 Another Trini6
man has increased his flock from 8.
to 5000, and quotes value at 81
head instead of S1-25 per head in Is
A Trinchera flock owner has 4,
sheep, or 2,7OO more than he had
1896, and the value at 81 per head,
Just double the value OF 1896
these are fair samnlss r,f The La