Yellowstone monitor. [volume] (Glendive, Mont.) 1905-1928, 1909-01-21

la higher tariff, q greater duty
on wool. It would not in the end
be a good thing to have a higher duty
on wool Nor do we want lower duty,
it is well enough as It is. There are
70, 606, 60066 people III america who ought
to wear woolen garments. Most of
these people are poor people or people
of moderate means. They cannot afford
to have their clothing cost them more
than ii is costing them now. Manu-
facturers are so cunning in their de-
vises that they are making every sort
of substitute for wool. II wool were
much more costly than it is now very
little comparatively would be used at
all.
ssNor is this the worst feagare of a
high tariff on wool. Wool is about the
one thing that a farmer produces that
is helped by a protective tariff. Near
/ ly everything that he buys is artifi-
cially increased in price by the protec-
/ tive tariff. Doubtless a measure of
protection is useful doubtless the tar
iff has built our cities, to a large de-
gree, and helped develope America.
/ Yet the time has come when American
country life needs a lowering Of tar
! ifs. We can not well demand the gem
eral lowering of tariffs unless we are
willing to let wool stay, at least,
/ where it is. With a general lowering
of tariffs we can gain concessions
from our neighbors, France, Germany,
and other European nations. These
people consume our farm products.
They should consume vastly more Of
/ our meats than they do. They shut es!t
our meats as much as it is possible
for them in plain retaliation at our
high tariffs. And when one branch OF
agriculture is harmed in America we
are all harmed. Not much wool grows
on hogs back, yet when you hurt
the sale of pork products in Europe
you hurt the woolgrowers Of America,
and it is easy to show how this pro-
ceeds. With high priced hogs farmers
will turn their attention not SO much
to producing sheep, thus the mutton
supply will be less, thus higher prices
Twill obtain. And this is true all
through the whole livestock and farm
/ ing industry. With the whole range OF
protective duties lowered somewhat
| farmers would find their cost Of living,
their cost of operating their farms ano
ranches materially reduced. Further
more, there would be slight lower
ing, very likely, of wages in the great
industrial centers, and that Woule
mean that the farmer would find il
easier to get good men to work on his
farm, or his ranch. And this Wo1le
not hurt the men in the least, they
would be better off for deserting tht
town for the country. It would at leas
stop in measure the steady drift 0.
men from the country to the town, tht
drift of the best men. We would hav'
higher class Of men to work on farms
or ranches. Not that we desire any 81
great lowering of tariffs as to caus'
!. mills to shut down, men to be thrown
out Of work, only just a sensible low
ering all around SO that the artlflcla
scale that has made SO many multi
/ millionaires in our manufacturing cen
!, ters would be a little lowered, on
millionaires would accumulate thel
! further millions little less rapidly
{ The millionaire crop is not in ever.
way good thing for America. Give
! us neither tramps nor nultimillion
, aires, should be the cry Of the tru
J American citizen.
$50 do not see how we can wit
! consistency advocate general RAISING
] of the wool tariffs. IF we could hav
5 some law enacted similar in its provi
. sions and workings 60 the pure foo
E act, or the meat inspection bill,
that we could have United State
0 label on all manufactured goods, an
) on all manufactured clothing, 50 ths