Semi-weekly herald., 1913-05-05

drowned by the Louisiana sugar plan.
crs, the western beet sugar men and
the sheep raisers of Ohio and the
western ranges. If the wool men are
at the moment less audible than tn,
sugar producers a plausible explans-
tion may be found in the statement
of Washington correspondent that
they "are so mad they can scarcely
speak" "Wool and sugar, taken to-
gether, present the crux of the tariff
situation" remarks the Baltimore
News tProg). and the news columns
are full of rumors of tactical al
lance in Washington between the
Democratic senator's from wool and
sugar states to defeat the provisions
for immediate free wool and for free
sugar at the end of three years, even
at the price of defying the party lead
ers and disrupting the party program.
Since the party in power has a ma
jority of only six in the senate, it is
argued, very small group of Demo
Gratis, by cooperating with the enc
my, could bring about this result.
Yet, in spite of all protests and ru-
mors, Majority Leader Underwood
confidently declares that "the bill will
pass the house just as it is approved
by the caucus" and the president, aft
er conference with the senate f.
nance committee, assures the news
paper men that 1--WE don't see any
difficulty in standing together on any
sort of party program"
President Wilson, according to the
Washington correspondents, is un-
bending in his demand for free wool at
once and free raw sugar in three
years. These features, Mr.. Under
wood informed congress, are the presi-
dents own contributions to the fran
ing of the tariff bill, and to repudiate
them would be slap at the admin
istration. "Out of four thousand and
more items in the bill," said Mr.. In
derwood, "the president made only
these two suggestions. 1t seems to
me that we should accept these two
suggestions from the president of the
United States. The opposition to free
wool in the house comes chiefly from
Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Penn
sylvania, Missouri, Michigan, Cali
fornia, New Mexico and Arizona. That
this opposition sees little prospect of
victory on the main issue may be in
ferred from the following statement
Of Congressman Ashbrook of Ohio to
New York Times representative:
I'VE demand that if raw wool is
put on the free list, manufactures of
wool also be put there. There is no
valid reason why the farmer who
raises the wool should be hit and the
manufacturer who uses that wool be
protected. If the farmer is to be hit,
the manufacturer should likewise suf-
for. To put wool on the free list
without treating manufactures of wool
the same way would not cheaper the
price of woolen 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, ac-
ecrding to the secretary of the Ma
tional Wool Growers association, will
be destroyed $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
have in the United States 100000
wool growers, owning 52,00O00O
sheep worth $232,000,00O. In addi-
tion to the value of the sheep we have
the value of the lands and equipment
needed to maintain them, which
amounts to $3.50, 100000. Therefore,
the aggregate investment in the sheep
industry is s5S0,000,000. This is more
money than is invested in all forms of
wool manufacturing in the United
States
Free wool is going to annihilate
this industry as effectively as if con,
gress had passed a prohibitory law
against the raising of sheep in this
country" exclaims the Denver Re-
publican (Rep.), which adds that "in
the matter of wool Colorado is on the
firing line, as in the matter of beet
sugar, live stock and ores" Under
the present tariff, says the Republic
an, wool raising in Colorado brings in
81 500, 900 year; and it continues:
"lf Colorado had voted for free
wool, free sugar, free live stock and
ores, it might be argued that the state
desired trial of the costly sort of
experimenting the Democratic ways
and means committee would put into
effect. But the Democratic vote in
this state is not majority vote, and
no sort of juggling with words will
set the members of the Colorado dele
CATION right if they vote for free