Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1920-12-30
Back to the Fig Leaf.
tSt, Louis Post.D .Dispatch.)


To the Editor:
1t will be surprise to most of your
readers to learn that "back to the
fig leaf costume" movement has been
inaugurated, and it will be, perhaps,
as great surprise to its advocates as
to anyone else, when they realize
what their arguments are headed for.
1t is not the long haired bolsheviks
nor wild-eyed communists who are
the exponents of this extraordinary
measure, but men who are high in the
affairs of the country and GoverfE-
ment. Men who, perhaps, have an
ak to grind and who expect to begin
grinding it about 1924.
Senator Capper seems to be the
leader of this new-fangled "cult,'s
Judging from the editorials over hi
own signature which appear in his
various periodicals. For instance, in
the November number of "Cappor's
Farmer" he argues for prohibitive
tariff that will keep out foreign grown
wool, or at least make it so high that
the average man could not afford a
wooden suit, for the sake of few
farmers who are trying to produce
wool on high priced land.
From 1870 there has been duty on
wool for the express purpose of foster
ing the sheep industry in this coun-
try, but it has signally failed, because
the staple crops give greater return
per Bcre than sheep. 1t has been
estimated that it takes one acre of ex-
ceptionally good land to keep sheep
year, and as high as five acres of the
poorer grades. The farmers of the
high priced land found this out
number of years ago, and as there
was no law compelling them to raise
sheep, they abandoned the practice
and proceeded to raise $40 worth of
grain on the ground necessary to sup
port sheep worth from $2 to S..
No amount of protective tariff will
ever induce them to go back to wool
producing, unless that duty were SO
high that it would put a woolen suit
in the luxury class and be available to
the very rich only.
The latest statistics show that the
wool production in the United States
for 1919 was 314,OOO,OOO pounds, or
about three pounds per capita, and
our requirements were 100000, 900
pounds, or about two and half times
our production. To meet this it was
necessary toimport 446, 900, 900 pounds,
and at that we were not surfelted
with an over-supply, for our clothing
still contains over one-half cotton.
1t may be argued that, in a pinch,
we can wear cotton. Certainly. And
maybe you have noticed that it has
been somewhat of a pinch to do that
recently. So, for the sake of argu-
ment, we will allow prohibitive
tariff to be placed on wool. Do we
then go on our way rejoicing, clad in
cotton produced in the Sunny South?
Not to any great extent, if the Sena-
tors complete program is adopted.
Turning to the editorial page en-
titled: "What the Editor Sees and
Thinks" we find these pertinent para
| graphs:
Reduce the cotton acreage third
for 1921.
Hold for the minimum price of &c
cents pound, with cent pound
additional for every month after Nov,
| l, 1921.
Retire % per cent of the best grades
until May, June and July, 1921.
i Large planters will not plant any OF
their lands in cotton in 1921, and when
cotton sells for less than cost of pro.
duction, will buy futures to the ex.
tent of the cotton they usually raise.
| The gathering of any of the very
low grades Of cotton should not bs
permitted.
] The only way can reconcile tn,
! two arguments is by an algebrai'