XI. NUMBER AND VALUE OF SHEEP IN OHIO, 1885 TO 1890, INCLUSIVE, FROM OFFICE AUDITOR OF STATE. I. That under the reduced tariff, by the act of 1883, sheep declined in number and value. II. That under the better protection of the act of 1890 sheep increased in number and value until 1894. II. That after the election of 1894 and the certainty of free wool as a consequence, sheep declined in number and value. XII. THE LOSS TO WOOLGROWERS IN UNION COUNTY, OHIO, UNDER FREE WOOL. [From the Marysville Tribune, October 28. 1896.] That times, during the past three or four years, have been most disastrous to the farmers of Union County, none will gainsay, especially if his business is among them or dependent upon their prosperity. My conversations and observations with them in almost every neighborhood of the county have impressed me with the fact that the greatest disaster to them is the adverse tariff legislation to the wool industry. To illustrate-I have made careful inquiry of intelligent farmers, both Democrats and Republicans, (1) of the loss in the value of sheep per head since 1892, (2) of the loss in the price of wool, and (3) the per cent of reproduction, and give below the average, as near as practical, omitting small fractions: 63,792 head, at a loss in value of $2.15 since 1892 . 153,090 head reproduction, at a loss in value of $2.15 since 1892. 338,504 pounds of wool per annum, at 11c. loss for four years Total $137, 152. 60 329, 133.50 148, 941.75 615, 238. 05 The above is the number of sheep and pounds of wool produced in Union county in 1892, which were then increasing. But the above is not half the real loss. The consequent depreciation on farm lands estimated at $5 per acre is $1,353,310 in this county, to say nothing about the loss on farm products. As stated above, the reproduction and the loss is the average estimates of our best farmers. Each person can fix these to suit himself and make his own calculations. All I desire to show is that the loss at the least is enormous; enough alone to produce a panic in any county. Yes, enough to pay off every farm mortgage in Union county! Think of it! Demonetization! To compare-if all the silver produced in the world in 1895 was coined into United States dollars and given (?) to the American people it would be less than $3 per capita, while our loss as given above is over $75 to every man, woman, and child in Union county. Were I writing an article for political effect rather than to give an idea of our loss, I would add that our party stands pledged by platform and honor to restore sheep husbandry to its former standing, while the other stands pledged by its platform and honor to leave it alone and make you rich (?) and raise your mortgages by first making some mine and bullion owners (American or foreign) richer and leaving you to get it from him-if you can. We make our laws on election day. Congress does merely the clerical work. Which do you want? LANSON B. HARVEY. XIII. THE LOSS IN COLUMBIANA COUNTY. The Salem News, October, 1896, publishes these official figures, showing how the farmers of Columbiana County have suffered loss in sheep and wool growing as a result of the victory for tariff reform in 1892. The figures show the number and valuation of sheep as returned by the assessors in Columbiana County in the year given: These figures show that there has been a falling off of nearly 40,000 sheep in Columbiana County in four years, and a decrease in valuation of $142,805. The valuation per head in 1892 for taxation was $2.68, while this year it is $1.61. This loss has come out of the pockets of the farmers of Columbiana County. Besides this loss, which is easily ascertained, there is the loss in wool from 40,000 sheep. CHAPTER XI. WHAT AMERICAN WOOLGROWERS HAVE LOST BY FREE WOOLTHE RUIN BY FREE WOOL. [From an article by William Lawrence in the Portland (Oreg.) North Pacific Stockman and Farmer (monthly), September, 1896.] SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTER. I. WHAT AMERICAN WOOLGROWERS HAVE LOST BY FREE WOOL. 1. Loss on value of sheep 2. Loss on farm value of wool.. 3. Loss of increase of sheep. II. HOW THE STATE of NEBRASKA IS INTERESTED IN SHEEP HUSBANDRY VIII. HOW TO SECURE BETTER PRICES FOR FARM PRODUCTS IX. THE EFFECT OF FREE WOOL IN REDUCING WOOL PRICES. Page. 176 178 179 179 179 179 179 180 180 181 181 X. WOOL imports for fiscal years 1895 and 1896.. XI. Imports of wool manufactures for fiscal years 1895 and 1896. 181 I. WHAT AMERICAN WOOLGROWERS HAVE LOST BY FREE WOOL. Free wool as a permanent policy will ruin our sheep husbandry except the production to a limited extent of mutton sheep in the vicinity of cities. It has increased imports, and hence carried gold to other countries which should have been paid to our own woolgrowers. The total wool imports, including the raw wool used in imported wool manufactures, were under the McKinley law as follows: In 1895, under the free-wool law, the imports were 483,823,010 pounds, including wool in woolen manufactures, or an increase over the average for the four years 1891-1894 of 257,717,090 pounds, or 114 per cent. 176 The following table shows the effect of the free-wool act of August 27,1894, resulting in a loss to flock owners of $178,793,121, with items thus: *The wool product for 1892, 1893, and 1894 is based on the estimates as given by eminent wool merchants in North's Wool Book for 1895. The secretary of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers says the farm value of wool in 1896" will not exceed 8 cents a pound," reducing the total value to $20,800,000. (See Bulletin of the Association, September, 1896, page 214.) So soon as the result of the election in 1892 was known, with a certainty of free wool, the free-wool price of wool commenced in 1893, a year in advance of the act of August 27, 1894. The increase in number of sheep in 1893 over 1892 was 2,335,188. If the increase had continued at the same rate until now, the number would be 7,005,564, which at $2.25 per head would be $15,762,519. Thus the total loss (1) in value of sheep, (2) farm value of wool, and in number and value of sheep would be $178,793,121. It can not be properly said that the decline in the number of sheep and wool product was compensated for by (1) other farm stock and (2) crops of hay and cereals, because 1. The place of the sheep could not be supplied immediately with horses, cattle, or hogs; 2. There had already been such overproduction of all these farm animals, that an increase in the number would aggravate the evil, and still further reduce the already ruinously low prices; 3. If the lands devoted to the sheep which were driven to slaughter by free wool had been devoted to increased production of cereals, this, too, would have aggravated the evils of overproduction and still further depressed the already ruinously low prices; 4. There are vast areas of land which can be utilized only for sheep. Of this class of lands are: (1) Mountain sides, inaccessible to any stock but sheep and goats, and (2) prairie lands in Texas and other States, with grass so sparse that cattle or horses can not secure enough for support, while sheep can. This is fully shown in Senate Document No. 17, of the Fifty-fourth Congress, first session; 5. The decline in the number of sheep took away a large market for pasturage, hay, corn, and oats, which reduced the already ruinously low prices of these crops; 6. With adequate protection for wool the number of sheep, instead of declining in 1893 and since, would have increased, and thus have (1) added to the wealth of the country (2) and increased the demand for and hence the acreage of pasturage, meadows, and cereal crops, and furnished a market for all; 7. It follows from these facts that the loss to woolgrowers, as stated, of $178,793,121, by no means presents the full measure of their loss; 8. In addition to the items of loss enumerated, there were others: (1) The depreciation in the value of sheep ranches; and (2) The depreciation in, and sometimes in the loss of buildings and fixtures erected for sheep husbandry, and implements needed for it. S. Doc. 17-12 |