The Twin Falls times. [volume] (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1905-1916, 1913-04-29

free wool in the House comes chiefly
from Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia,
Pennsylvania, Missouri, Michigan,
California, New Mexico, and Arizona.
That this opposition sees little pros
pect of victory on the main issue may
be inferred from the following state
ment of Congressman Ashbrook. of
Ohio, to a New York Times represen-
tatiye:
1--WE demand that if raw wool is
put on the free list, manufacturers of
wool also be put there. There is no
valid reason why the farmers who
raises the wool should be hit and the
manufacturer who uses that wool be
protectedi II the farmer is to be hit,
the manufacturer should likewise
suffer. To put wool on the free list
without treating manufacturers of
wool the same way would not cheaper
the price of wooden clothing
Leaving the manufacturers out of
the question for the moment, says the
Philadelphia Inquirer (Rep), free
wool means the destruction of the
flocks of American sheep" Thus,
according to the secretary of the Ma
tional Wool Growers Association, will
be destroyed "a $3.50, 100000 industry
in the Western States In an article
published in the New York Herald he
backs up this statement with the fol-
lowing statistics:
According to the last census we
had in the United States 100000 wool
growers, owning 52,000,OO0 sheep
worth $232,000,00O. In addition to the
value of the sheep we have the value
of the lands and equipment needed to
maintain them, which amounts to
Therefore the aggregate
investment in the sheep industry is
$5S0,000.00O. This is more money than
is invested in all forms of wool man
ufacturing in the United States"
Free wool is going to annihilate
this industry as effectively as If Con-
gress had passed prohibitory law
against the raising of sheep in this !
country" exclaims the Denver Re-
publican (Rep.), which adds that Sin |
he matter Of wool Colorado is on the
firing line, as in the matter of beet
sugar, live stock, and ores Under
he present tariff, says The Republi-
IAN, wool-raising in Colorado brings
n $1,500,000 year; and it continues:
If Colorado had voted for free
WOOL, free sugar, free live stock, and
res, is might be argued that the State
esired trial of the costly sort of
experimenting the Democratic Ways
nd Means Committee would put into
fleet. But the Democratic vote in
his State is not asmajority vote, and
o sort of juggling with words will
ct the members of the Colorado dele
alton right If they vote for free
yool."
The prospect of defeating free wool
the Senate seems bright also to
UGH papers as the Salt Lake Tribune
RepO and the Portland Oregonian
Rep.). 1t is evident, says the Salt
AXE paper, that the Presidents prop
sition can not carry except by the
d of Democratic Senators from
tates that are vitally interested in t
ool-growing;" and it goes on to ana c
re the situation as follows:
"The Senate is composed of ninety /
X members. OF these fifty-one are n
and forty-five are protec-
onists, including two Progressives .
Id forty-three straight Republicans. Il
"On the wool question there are at n
asst four Democratic Senators, two ;
ON Montana, and two from Oregon, =
hose constituents are vitality inter-
ted in the wool tariff 1t is not in
e least likely that those four SEM
ors could be induced to vote for
&c wool; but taking those four SEN
ors out of the Democratic column
ere would remain but forty-seven
ee wool men in the Senate, to forty
ne in favor of wool tariff. Doubt :
IS the two Democratic Senators =