The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1912-10-08
lr5-l I1Es 90

from tIgGnty-lVg 70 thirty GEMS per
pound f.Sf his Cdl. and the highest
casK prices Tor his sheep and lambs
eSow let rs see what would have
happened to the wool business iG
the bill that was passed by the vote
OF John w. Davis ana his party in.
the House Of Representatives had.
not been stopped BY s1e presidential
veto. The story IL told briefly in a
letter from the house OF HoEk-
heimer. the largest wool buying
firm in this section OF the United
States. Nobody among the sheep
men need be told OF the hIgh-stand-
1nE and reHab3ltty' OF that arm. u
Is an ola ana honorable concern,
irzted high in the written and un-
writfen code o. the commercial
world. T.
This is what they say:
Wheeling, w. va.
Sept. 2s. 1912.
ITO the editor of the InteHigencer:
..slr. Replying to your inquiry
believe that, can say with abso-
lutte certainty that the effect OF the
Democratic wool bill. had It become
a law, would have been seriously
TO cripple. II not entirely to de-
stroy, the TIool growing industry OF
West, Virginia. Ohio and Pennsyfva-
.nia.,4 our. wool has had: and now
has. a protective duty OF eleven
Gents i1 per pound. TIE proposed bill
reduced the protective duty to about
twenty2n1ne cents ad valorem, or ap=s
four cents per; pound
.ExpeJienee lbasssbown that lowering
the duty or wipipg it out practically
lowers the, value of wool by the. en-
tire amount Of duty removed In
other words. the effect of this wool
bill would have been to lower the
price OF our home wool six or seven
cents per pound
ut is unnecessary to say what rfrfs
would have meant to the farmers OF
the Panhandle counties of West Vir-
sinia, and to the farmers OF east
eru Ohio. Fortunately. the veto in
the hands of President Taft saved
them from this threatened danger,
and every man interested in the
wool business owes a debt to Mr.
Taft by virtue of this veto am
hot a politician. write this sim
BY as a business man interested IN
the wool industry, and more or Tess
familiar with the conditions under
which wool is grown in this section.
During the existence Of the VIII
son bill, which put wool on the free
list. We bought millions Of pounds
of wool at nine cents to ten cents per
pound for unwashed wool. and
twelve cents to fourteen cents per
pound for choice washed wool. I'm
washed wool this year sold for TWEEN
ty-two cents to twenty-five cents,
washed wool from twenty-eight to
thirty cents This certainly shows
clearly the, result of protective
duty of eleven cents
Yours truly,
Csignedj
LOUIS HoRKHEIMER.' =
In view OF all this, would not you
think it would be quite humiHating
for Congressman Davis to go about
asking farmers-and Republican and
protectionist farmers at that-to
vote to send him back to Congress
where he will soon again have an
opportunity to vote against the best
interests of the farmers? Was
there anything more absurdly con-
Trajectory and inconsistent than his
present predicament as seeker for
votes among the agrfculturists OF
this and every other county of the
adissriet?. 7@
.aIpy Davis is certainly unsound on
the tariff, His position, which is the
position of his party, is inimical to
the farmer. business man and the
wage Garner. The opportunity TO
send man to Congress in his
place who is sound on these eco
nomic questions is now at hand.
The Hon. George A. Laughlin is a
protectionist by birth, breeding and
the free choice OF practical bust
ness man who has worked out a de-
olson on the tarin question for him
.1e