El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1911-05-24

if a duty is retained upon the manufac-
tured article.
"Of all the great dailies that dis
pense the news morning and evening
to her 1000, 900 people, we know Of
only two supporting the fallacy Of free
+ raw material Now. the advocates Of
free wool have put forth the argu-
ment that although the removal Of
the duty on this article may drive the
sheepmen of the United States out of
| business, still the federal government
| cannot be expected to pass laws to
| foster and protect a single industry,
| especially when that has to be done at
the expense of the whole people; that
the tariff is tax and the people in
| the end pay the tax. All right; let's
! see whether or not it would be better
to have them pay the small difference
| that the tariff on raw wool adds to the
| cost Of the manufactured article Of
from So cents to so cents on a $40 suit
of clothes (and I am now quoting the
| testimony of experts produced at the
Payne-A1drich tariff hearing).- or
| whether It would be better to let the
4. business in the United States perish.
! Now we do not believe there is per-
| cent of the wool producers of the Unit
ed States that will tell you the bust
ness can exist on free wool basis 1
4 know you cannot get a half dozen in
Texas whose mental faculties are abb
solutely in good working order to.
| make the statement. Now If the bus
4 mess is destroyed in the United States,
where will we get our wool supply.
| PROFESSIONALLY from Australia and the
! Argentine republic.
The United States consumes about
| 500 900, 900 pounds Of wool annually.
| About half OF this amount she pro-
| ha bo1o cEo
mostly from the two countries above
| named. Now, the Argentine republic
| is fast going under the plow. She is
| importing to the United States 10.
! times as much wheat now as she did
| a few years back; consequently her
| sheep stock is decreasing rapidly. 1t
| is true that Australia increased in
sheep during the three years of the
| Wilson law from $4,000, 600 to 122, 000.
600; but Australia is subject to the
most disastrous drouths every few
| years which last over a period of
! two, three and sometimes as long as
/ four years; and from 10000 900 in
| 1899, her sheep stock dwindled to 76,-
| 100000 in 1908. occasioned by little or
/ no rainfall during that period These
! dry periods will reoccur and her sheep
stock may be reduced lower still. and
| is 1T reasonable to suppose that with
the business, under free wool. wiped
| out in this country. that the wool
| grower of Argentina. and Australia
would lay his wool down to the con-
sumner in the United States at the price
| he is charging now? No; having 4
monopoly of the product, they would
charge the consumer IN this country
double and triple the amount now
| charged, and instead of the II cents
specific, which in reality. on account
of the character of the woods shipped
in by these countries and the further
fact that the Australian and South
American woods shrink much less than
the woods Of the United States. only
amounts to about cents specific, we
would be paying for our woods 80 and
40 cents a pound. and possibly a sale OF
bonds levied upon the people to obtain
money for current expenses of the
government occasioned by the loss OF
the s21 00O, 600 now produced from the
tariff on rawSwool
The question has been asked, Why
cannot we produce wool as cheaply in
the United States as the cost of pro-
ducing this article in Argentina or
Australia, and why cannot we sell our
wool upon the markets of the world
with these countries? The answer to
this. to the mind of. the average school
boy, is clear and satisfactory. The
board of trade Of London, in its in
vestigation last year, found that the
average amount paid out for labor in
the United States was about three
times as great as, that of England and
five times as great as Australia and
Argentina. And, again, the parasite
known as scab, that causes the ami
NAL to lose flesh and the wool to drop
off ard incurs the necessary expense
Of dipping, which is quite an expense
to the sheepmen in many parts of tho
United States. has. not been known in
Australia in SO years
"The wolf which annually destroys
Is percent of the sheep in Texas, New
Mexico, and other parts of the United
States, has been eradfcated long ago
in Australia, and Argentina was never
infested with the same. In Australia
the sheep run loose the year round,
and the only expense incurred is for
shearing. In Texas it costs $40 per
month for herder; $40 per month to
board said herder; s25 per month for
camp rustler, and $40 per month to
board said rustler; cents a head to
dip the sheep twice a year-all this in
addition to the cost Of running same
in the two foreign countries; and be-
sides where sheep are herded they do
not increase so fast and the wool does
not grow so long and sell for as much
per pound as when thy are permitted
to run loose. Again, the freight rate
is cheaper by water from Australia to
Boston. and from Argentina to Bos-
ton, from Y to cent a pound, than
it is from San Antonio, Tex, or from
Denver, Colo. to Boston. Now, it i'm
presses me that this ought to be suf-
ficieHt and convincing to the average
mind that we are seriously Handicapped
in competing with the producers of /
wool in those two countries. The wool
growers of Texas only ask that such |
tariff be levied on the raw wool, en-
ter1ng this country as will equalize |
the difference in the cost of producing |
IN this country and that of producing |
wool in Australia and the Argentine !
republic or other coutries where SINH |
lar conditions prevail. You may ask
how that can be arrived at. I say it !
is quite simple.
L will give you. farther along the |
cost of producing wool in Texas, which |
produces cheaper wool by 80 percent |
than any other state in the union, and |
you may take from that one-fifth the |
cost of labor and about one-fourth the !
cost of grazing Gas in Argentina and |
Australia the most of the range is like |
it was in Texas 20 years ago, free. |