The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-02-26
The Duty on Wool.

Editor OF The IlNes-piSpdtSi'
sir,-In your Issue of February 70
YOU have an editorial. What Proiee-
ton Has Done for Wool" In whieh
YOU quote figures showing now largely
sheep growing had decreased In the
New England States between 1881 ana
1909. and YOU conclude your editorial
wtththo assertion that the nation is pay
inc, heavily into the pockets Of the sheen
raisers and you asked the question,
what for?" and requested ina, some
ardent protectionist would kindly an
Swer.
First of all, we wish ti,b to ar 5ay ,nrs
generally, has been on the retrosra
many years in the New England stales.
for the best OF reasons-they cahiio "
compete with the we" s.,.a aha i IN sheen
Is more largely TO be attributed 10
the fact that sheep can be raised niucii
more economically in other s ee,loha
of the country than IN New Ensia t!li.
Besides this. it is a well-known tael
that the people in the Eastern states
have largely left the farms to go to
the cities. II you viii refer to tIo
operation of the Wilson tariff oiii.
which was enacted by De1noGfa 81,
that the duty on wool was rcduceu
to almost a free trade basis, the &c
suit being disastrous not only W t.o
sheep growers of this country, Dut W
Other Industrial conditions EcncraliY.
for we find that within two years
after the Wilson bill went into effect
that the price OF Virginia WOOL DC,
clined from about % cents per pound
lust prior to it's going into effect 10
IA cents per pound. almost 90 per cent.
and the number Of sheep in the United
states within short period Of time
to almost half the number that mad
T.,,, n H..
dition to this. 1t had the effect of
deInoralizing our WOODEN MANUFACTURE
ing interests. throwing out OF employ
ment many thousands of people for
a long period of time. and bringing
into this country millions Of yards OF
imported wooden goods and hundreds
of millions pounds or WOOL from CHINA,
Africa. Australia and some other for
moralzaticn OF both the business in
raw material and the manufacturing
interests You may argue that all
of this resulted In benefit to the con-
would be able to get clothes at much
less cost, and clothing at fully 40 to
80 per cent less than Its former cost,
but such was not the case and the
operation OF tho Wilson bill VIII con-
vince you that n suit OF clothes cost
about the same during the time OF the
operation of tho Wilson bin as IT had
uOItl uIluCI iiiH'l pADsSN'tot'' 1llNl ~
being very evident that the reduc-
ton did not go to the consumer. The
latter might be a good argument in
favor of free trade In one sense OF
the word, but experience has de,npn-
strated that, as far rs this particular
raw material Is concerned tho heavy
reduction or duties did not benefit tho
consumer and that some ono else gets
tho full benefit Of It, but tie cN-
perencc OF demorallalng the Industrial
end OF wooden goods aud making tho
production OF wool and nho0p, which
Under ordinary conditions Id Very
profitable, n losing proposition ana ro4
ducing the number or sheen IN THIS
country very heavily. thereby para
lyzing that feature or agrluultural
industry. which IL not uuly d Very
necessary one, hut In addition Ln Ma
profit to tho farmers Ia n Very dpRtrs
able feature Of fnrming bpuh,lsn OF
tho Improvement to tho land, cite
We may find II Very hnueHHnrp To
have free raw material In many lmsa
of our Industries, and hatleye that
1t Lis very important that wa uhuulu
have them on somp, hut Your nnurni
is directed simplv TO tho wpnl grow
Ing Industry. and believe Hint sta.
.tlstics md facts and loeln Wlll readily
demonstrate thnt tho entrances az wuoi
into the United slnlea, ultor rrNe trndo
or worry low dutlnH, WIN alWnyA be a
very, dlsnst roua experiment.,
lOa, WAl.LlslisTElN.
Richmond. February ~, II,