Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-10-19

lions come closer to the life and we'll be-
ing of a people than do milling and man.
ufacturing.
1t is true that many countries depend
on other nations for their raw material
in exchange for which they" give the
manufactured products at a great profit
for a series of years. But such a course
can never give true national indepen-
source of supply will be shut off and then
bankruptcy of capital and starvation of
temploye are the quick result. Perhaps
the best example of such a policy and it's
hazards is the case of Great Britain.
which has time and again suffered from
the shutting off of the source of supply
of the raw material. In the case of it's
cotton factories, it long depended ex-
clusively on the United States. and dur
ing our great civil war, the wheels of the
factories We're silent and their looms
were idle to an appalling extent.
Our own state. perhaps in a greater
proportionate degree than any other. has
felt the adverse effect of democratic
tariff legislation. For wool and wheat
and Hour have felt the full effect of
democratic attacks.
The Importation of wool had never
| reached $50. 900. 900 pounds prior to the
time that / twas placed on the free list by
the Wilson tariff. but the year after this
| tariff got into full operation, the impor-
tation rose to 2s0. 900. 900 pounds and the
next year it was $50, 900. 900. But by the
Dingley tariff the amount was at once
reduced to 1870. 900, 900 pounds, and a year
later to less than so, 200. 900. The impor-
tation of wooden goods, also. which in the
pr osperous year 1892, under President
Harrison was but $s5, 565. S79. was $53, 494.-
400 in the fiscal yea re1S9 6under the Will
son low-tariff and Immediately follow
| ing the enactment of the Dingley law
| fell to $14. So. III in the fiscal year 1897.
and to $13. SS2. 621 in 1899.
In 1899 the importation of raw dool
were $S,4242, 345 against $53, 24s, 191 in the
last year under the Wilson law. 1t is
also a fact that the percentage OF Jaw
wool consumed in our factories which
had seldom exceeded 80 per cent prior to
the election of Cleveland for his second
term was. in 1896, 45.9 per cent and
measured by the imprts was 57.S per cent
in 1897. though it is probable that much
of the 1897 imports was in fact retained
for use during the following r. Under
i this importation of foreign
woods and woolens, the number of sheep
on farms fell from AZ, 273 ,55S in 1898, the
wear in which Cleveland was inaugural
! ed, to sc SIS 4S in 1897, the last year under
the Wilson law. while their value fell
from s125, 900. 264, in 1888 3,to s65, 1857. 1876 in
1896, a loss to the farmer of $50, 200. 600. or
nearly one-half, in this single item or
sheep. directly chargeable to the Wilson
tariff. And in his statement nothing Is
said of the disruption of existing farm
conditions and methods, and of the COM
pufsory double adjustment by each indi-
u =. l-1 10 %1s Irn yNrh nf fn nm n or
to a new state of affairs, or the loss in
value of his wool clip. The price of fine
washed Ohio wool, also fell in the New
York markets from 81 cents a pound in
1891 to an averag eof Is cents a pound
in 1895 and 1895, and Immediately return
ed to 81 cents in 1899 under the Dingley
tariff. Add to this the enormous loss on
the wool itself during the existence of the
low tariff law, and the retention of the
l. great supply which was brought in under
Fit, and it is estimated that the loss to the
farmer in the value of his sheep ana their
products from democratic rule between
1892 and 1898 was, at a very low estimate
$3.50, 900, 900.
The loss of $50, 900, 900 on sheep is, how
ever, trifling when compared with the
loss in value of farm stock generally. In
practically every class of animal there
was a decrease in value during the demo-
cratic low tariff perior and an immediate
increase in value after the Inauguration
of President Mckinley and the restora-
ton of a protectinve tariff. On January
/, 1898, just prior to the Inauguration OF
President Cleveland, the value of farm
animals in the United States was put
/ down at 81, 4S3 sos, 6S1 by the department
of agriculture. BY January ], 1894, ever
before the Wilson act had been enacted
ID hut. while it was under discussion, the
'FHalue of farm animals had fallen to ST.
1E0, SIG, 754, a loss of more than $500, 900,
GOO. On January 1, 1895, one year later
their value was 81, $40, 446, 3O6, or a loss ir
that year of 1889, 600, 600 to the farmer. II
81 the following year there was still anothe
reduction in value, showing a loss o
y nearly s100, 900, 900 and on January /, 1887
r. a still further reduction Of SIS, 900, 900
imaking a total loss in value of farm ami
FINALS alone from January 1, 1898 to Jan
:. uary /, 1897, of $s2s, o92, Os9-nearly a bill
lion dollars loss to, the farmers alone o
,4Isthe United States in the single item o
the value of the animals upon thei
farms.