Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1910-06-30

ers). The same amount of clean WOO
IN 1910 at today's value is only SGT. SCI .
O4S, q loss to the farmers who GROW
wool of $2l, S2S. S16
This is the loss to the farmer on IN.
1910 wool crop alone. The shrinkaee il
the value Of his unused wool, as well as
that carried over by others from ls.,
year, including loss on yarns and goods
MADE from the same, is estimated al
over $50, 600, 900 more, so that the tot.l
loss to the wool growing and wool man.
ufacturing business, resulting from the
agitation Of a further reduction in the
duties upon wool and woolens. already
exceeds total of $40, 900, 900. and no
man can tell where this shrinkage in
value is to end.
| We do not hesitate to charge the
blame for this unnecessary and unwar.
ranted lVss upon agitators for further
tariff reduction.
Ihers Is no other business so sensi-
tive to the menace of tariff revision as
the wool business. This is because of
the painful experience of tariff revision
under President Clevelsnd's last admin
lstratlon, eliminating in the Free Wool
Wilson Act, which during its short life
caused the destruction of one-fiftb IF
the sheep in the United States. and if
that destruction had not teen arrested
oy the election of Mckinley, culmipat-
ing IN the passage of the Dingley Act.
the United States would soon have been
without sheep. This means that the
consumer would have been without NUT
ton as meat food, and without wool
Tor clothing, and would have been en-
tlreiy dependent upon foreign supply.
winch the world over is decreasing.
We know from our experience during
the free wool period that the United
states, like Germany with free wool.
would soon see her sheep disappear. in
strong contrast with the period since
the passage of the Dingley Tariff Act.
when the number of sheep in the United
states has increased more than half.
while those of Germany with free wool
have decreased more than half.
Wool growers may well ask "who is
to blame for the loss of $40, 900. 900 to
the wool industry in six months? and
VINO Is to blame for the drop in the price
OF wool to the free wool level, while the
Payne-Aldrich Act is still in force?'
The harm already resulting from the
agitation has thrown business into con-
fusion and disorder. The Congressman
who are responsible for all this DAMAGE
to the farmers who grow wool, were
not elected from so-called manufactur-
ing sections, but were all elected from
agricultural sections. They were plede-
ed to protect the farmers interests.
The wool growers will demand an ac-
| counting; they will ask these Congress-
men why they have been fa1thless to
their trust, and why they are not now
advocating the principles of Mckinley
for protection to wool, on which thew
were elected, and why, on the contrary.
they are forcing into practice the prin-
clples of William j. Bryan that have
thrice been repudiated by the America
people in Presidential elections.
We ask again, who has caused the
wool grower who got $SS, 900, 900 for his
1909 clip to take S67, 900, 900 for the 1910
clip? And we again ask, what is the
remedy? President Taft has already
said publicly that his administration
was not elected to destroy the industry.
therefore it is up to him to make good.
and the remedy is in his hands. He has
only to say that he will veto any leeis-
iatlon that reduces the duty upon wool.
and so soon as he has said this. values
will cease to shrink and the protective
benefits of the Payne Aldrich Act
which is President McKinley's Dineley
Act revised and improved, will immedi-
ately be again operative, and the tariff
schedule, the protective benefits of
which increased the number of sheen
from 81, 900, 600 in 1897 to 81, 900, 900 in
1910 will be acknowledged in the future
as IN the past, as carrying the least
amount of protection that will conserve
the wool growing industry of the United
States.