| OCR Text |
Show hum I'liunuiioN I'lturiiTi A RHOi T time ago a wealthy woolen mauufacturer of Vhlladel hla, iiauin.1 Thomas Djlan wrote a Utter In the IN'ew York 11 ortd on tho wool iiuritlou. Ill that letter ho said! "It It au Interesting foci, deserving of em basis of statement, that the prlrcs ol wool ars lower now thau llivytiuro ouo year ago. This decline was distinctly I romll by tho protectionists during iho discussion v-hlch arcouipauled tho fiaiu IngeflbeMcKlnleytarlX" Conlldtilng the fait that Mr, Dolau wasonu of thenuny Inlluentlal busl-ncitnien busl-ncitnien who c,avo eitdeniu before the llouso comuitUeu on vojs nud mcaiuilnrivorofthoMcKluleyblll, It lisui'pni-tHl tlutho knosravhat bo la talking alut. If tho wool clause of thu McICInhy bill meant anything, II turcly nua nl anlncnatelu prlivfor the home irodurtr of wool. And It was so uiidirstood ty oviry sheep owmr from Maine to Texas. The freilradtrt In Ohio have tlui up Dolan's letter nud aro mlnn; It nt a caulagn doiiiiuent. 'Ihero U no dodging the ipieslluu that wool It cheaper than It us a ) ear a o. The woolgrowers know that without bolug told It Hut to tell them that such was cuutemplated at one uf the benefits of the McKlnloy bill seems like ar, attain) at-tain) t lo i ull the si ool over their eyis. Judge Lxwreuce, president of thu Ohio Wool Growers' Association hat written a long letter to tho American UWuuitCbf-'oni'ciurfcr, In reply to Mr. Djlan. The Judo was alto oiie of tlie prouitucut person! who tutved the way for the (ussage of the McKluley bill. In January, bM, before the Wayiaud Mcaut Uommlltre, his ilea for a tarlll on forslgn wool was "In order that tho farmer may make the wool ludustrv more profitable." Jo admitted then that the ultimate dibit of an Increased duty might be chesier Koods fur the consumer, but 'the first ellirt would bu to liKreitso the i rice" Jujge Lsureuu'u was dcle.atuil by the Ohio wool growers to attend at Wash ington 'or nionths previous to tho aa of tha McKlnly bill, for tha da piiriniw of adopting as high a duty un wool as .possible. II dan's utteram e now places him In a doubtful lotltlsti. Of course Julge Lawrence In his re. ply denies that tboMclClnley bill hal nnyauch object In view at the Imma. dlalo decline In the price of borne pro-ducisl pro-ducisl wools. In this ho Is argumentative argumenta-tive honest, though tha actual decline de-cline being before bis eyes he Is yet iconomtcnlly benighted. Ho knowa tint h worked for Increased prices In 1 asslug the wool larliT Thess prices hav,e not come, an I now his opioueuti say that the tarlll hat Injured the farmer However, tho protectionists aro not discomfited. They hold that tho woil I reduce of the world Is Immense, nnd tuatlmpmved transportation fwllltlea have made Thibet, Africa, Australia and America, contiguous countries. That Is all right as far as tho chtin-Ingof chtin-Ingof wool In general commerce It concerned, but In tlm Unite! Mates this foreign wool can not enter without paylngftduly of twelve cents or more pound. It It true Australian wool has fallen considerably lu rloea abroad. This can boexplalnod by tha fact that Ita exclusion from our nwkcts would causan glut In other mirkeU, and cou-eeiiuent cou-eeiiuent reduction In price. Altogether the wool Issue Is n-sum-Iiir rather complicated phise for the political economist. It It bceo'mlnR aa mlxtil as the sliver rjuosllon. And, In fact, several ol tha free silver organs attribute the present decreased price of wool to tho silver demououll.atlon liwofls-l. Thire may, or may not lie some ground for this, but It will bo ilinlcult tomalethcftveragoclllieii believe It. At all events, the wool Issue la taking an Interesting turn lu Ohio, and the file of MclClnlcy and the defencoef his bill hangs to ft certatu extent ou Its discussion Ihere. |
