New Mexico state record. (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1914-19??, 1918-09-06
AMERICAN SHEEP FIRST

bout by the war have resulted in a
stimulation of the wooden industry
in Australia" says Howard A. Treat,
secretary to the U. S. commercial at.
tache at Melbourne, Victoria, "and
mately this country (Australia) will
be able to manufacture from it's own
wool all the wooden goods needed
here. Some concern is felt over a
possible relaxation of the present
restrictions after the war, and there
is a strong feeling that the present
protection should be maintained in
order to prevent foreign competition,
particularly if in the meantime the
local industry has developed suffic-
iently to take care of local requir-
ments.
That the protective sentiment is
Country is well born out by the fact
hat Prime Minister Hughes, of Aus.
t%ralia, has recently been making ad-
dresses in England in support of that
policy Hughes wants the British
Empire to make as large a props
tion as possible of it's raw materials
into finished products. Treats re.
port simply ~corroborates the testi-
mony which we already have with
respect to the desire of Australia to
adopt a tariff policy which practic-
ally all the great nations, with the
exception of the United States under
control, have acknowledge
ed to be the proper thing for their
domestic industries . President Will
son, and the Southern cotton ring,
still stand Out for the removal of all
economic barriers, chiefly because
the cotton growers want good mar
kets for their raw material, and SEEM
ingly don't give a continental what
happens to American manufacturing
There can be no objection, from
the Republican standpoint, to Aus.
tralia taking steps to protect, foster,
and d~evelope a wool manufacturing
industry. This is a matter of domes.
tic policy for every country. But Re-
publicans certainly do object to
continuing under the Democratic
policy, and they will change
that policy at the first opportunity.
First, we should encourage and in
rease our own wool production.
With proper encouragement this
country could produce GOO, Don, 900
pounds of wool annually. That en-
first Of all, a protective tariff
the raw wool; second, some sort
Of legislation, State or National, to
sheep from the ravages Of
dogs; and. third, an intensive and
countrywide propaganda to put
a sheep or two, or more, wherever
is available pasture.
On the other hand, if our wool pro-
1ucers are to find a ready market
'or their raw wool, our wool manu-
must control a share of the
.rade which will enable them to run
heir mills, and the nearer to maxi.
mum capacity these mills attain, the
will be the unit cost Of produc-
ng wool textiles, and the more fav-
their chances to complete
other wool manufacturing coun-
ries in foreign fields. Naturally the
the output the greater the
of operatives employed at
he American wage standard, and, as
corollary, the greater the home
consumption of the products Of A.
n~erican farms.
Under the Democratic tariff policy
is a competitor in wool
nd its manufacture would present
serious problem. Her production Of
sool prior to the war averaged a.
out u ,OO0, 900 pounds annually,
,hile New Zealand, her island neigh
or produced nearly 200, 0O0, 900 lbs.
/ would be many years under
he very best conditions, before Aus.
ralian wool factories could handle
enormous production, consequ.
ntly we might expect to see Aus
ralia shipping a vast surplus to the
market, while her exports
D US Of wool manufactures would !
,crease as her industry developed. '
he wool problem alone is of suf- !
ieient importance 10 justify a return )
!, the protective tariff policy which '
-rved the country we'll for nearly I
D years, yet the Democrats champ. I
IN free wool and merely nominal
uties on the manufactured products.