The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-05-01
FIGHTING THE WOOL TARIFF.

! the Democrats We objected to that
revision because it would be paralyz-
ine on the lead and zinc miners or
this region upon the wool growers,
and upon the sugar industry, always
provided that 80 far as wool and sugar
are concerned, there would IN fact be
reduction of the price corresponding
to the reduction in the tariff. AS to
this reduction as we stated, there is
room for grave doubts, since the com
bines among the sugar Tehners and
trusts and the wholesale dealers would
be very likely to absorb for themselves
the difference between the present tariff
and free sugar and free wool. This
would be all the easier, as the absolute
freedom from duty would apply
gradually rather than Immediately, be-
cause there would always be an ex-
cuse ready against any reduction OF
the price because of a partial reduc'
tion in the duty similar to the excuse
given for failure to reduce the price
Of coffee when the tariff was taken oil
from coffee after the Spanish American
war, the allegation being that the
coffee crop was short that year and
therefore prices were higher. So the
taking off of the tariff upon coffee and
tea did not in the least reduce the price
to the retail buyer of those articles
But Democratic friend is desirous
OF presenting the Eastern Democratic
view upon this question. He is gentle
man well trained in Eastern politics
and a fervent Democrat OF the old
Voorhees, school. He asks that his views
be presented in The Tribune, and we
are quite willing to crafty him by
giving his views, which are presented
by himself, as follows:
Granite Ranch Hanksvtlle. Utah.
April "a, 1913.
Editor Tribune:-Your editorial on the
labored contribution and one that to the
casual reader would be taken very Sc
riousy; especially Is that true OF the
paragraph treating on the wool industry.
There seems to be a little liberality In
its makeup mixed with a great deal OF the
spirit of bitter disappointment and cha
grin over defeat and the undermining of
your pet theory of protection. There is
also an obseryant amount of that ele
ment so common among few business
men. Republican politicians, and q lot OF
, malcontents that are borrowing trouble.
In your editorial you refer TO the the
ory. that by taking off the tariff on wool
i woaid reduce the Price Of cIothing
that to be correct. for to my certain and
absolute knowledge the tariff on wool. for
several years. has been of no benefit at
all TO the American producers. On the
contrary, II has worked 10 the advantage
of the wool brokers and the manufa ctur-
= ers: They alone have been the oenefic-
3 iaries. They have taken advantage OF the
, unsettled situation and condition that
has existed: because of the agitation over
: the question OF a tariff on wool and have
actually bought wool at a less prico than
would have prevailed In an open market
9 regulated by quality. supply, and demand
How many of the, wool producers have
heard this song from the wool buyers
S and shippers every year. for ever sc
many-"We don't know what Congress
Is going TO do about the tariff on wool
e Wen buy your wool but It must be
| cheap and at very low figure" They
3 have used that club for, the last time
t II Is geing to be settled now, and for
The conditions that you prophesy tha
{ may prevail as between importers. manu-
facturers. and retailers are just what does
| maintain under protection. Do you sup
l. pose that II is possible for such arrange
ments to exist without protection? II
: not argue that now, as II will take too
much space. l want TO refer TO another
phase OF the sheep and wool industry
You contend that putting wool on IN,
free list would be a Gripping blow to th'
e raising of wool In the United States pu
\, upon a different basis, etc, etc. Now.
let us see about that. ! suppose you anc
!. Taft's Tariff Board?'' Did any of yo,
! ever read, their report as 10 sheep ant
,, wool production IN the United States
l. eont!nnity cor of the tariff for protection
!. for protection's sake, has for years de
> pended upon keeping the truth. from In
q short nj heI
&c findings Remember now that this Is tn
> verdict Of a Republican Jury founded upol
% Republican testimony and evidence. The,
V found that there We're $4,000 600 sheep Ii
; the United States They found that ther
u were three districts that practically pro
\ tory west OF the Missouri river the,
% called the western Range district
TIVE fo hs ceHTs rs f Of the sae
v Ohio they named the district OF Gen
- eral Farming Then they denomnatet
!e poor lands Of southeastern Ohio. parts o
\ Pennsylvania. and West Virginia as tn
a n ohio" district or the 5o,ooo,ooo shee
- seventy per cent-35, 900, 00o-were on tn
IL Western Range" twenty per cent wer
1t in the General Farming' district, an
's found that the cost OF producing a poun
u. OF wool on the Western range wa
,. eleven cents: IN the "Ohio" district
es while in the General Farming dstric
"a the wool cost the producer nothing; tha
i' the sale Of mutton and lambs more tha
IN paid for the keep Of the sheep.
We've often heard that we needed Pre-
lection TO our sheep and wool ndustr
as on account OF the inexpensive method c
a. producing wool In Australia; that the
get two crops Of wool etc. etc, By
u what about protection against a sectio
or OF our own. country where the produce
- has money left for the keep OF his shee
ns without the sale Of his wool? I kno
of OF instances where the farmer actual
- gives the proceeds OF his wool crop
~ his wife for pin money. I can't SO
an any recourse for the sheepmen OF tf
=" other two wool growing districts OF tn
to country II they have to have protectio
a. that they may succeed but to Join force
and invade the general farming di
on trlct and ''pizen" the whole outfit.
We That the wool and sheep industry neet
protection In order that II may exist
n subterfuse OF a greedy, incompeten