FARMERS' INSTITUTES. 229 



look with the corners but slightly rounded, and instead of going home saying all 

 manner of harsh things of cheating, docking, etc., you will feel as tliougli you 

 had another friend. But you had better continue washing your sheep and 

 soaking yourselves for four or five hours annually, unless you cease to allow 

 them to run to tlie straw stack and help themselves, or in the dusty road in 

 May and June, and carry hay over their backs and throw it on their heads and 

 neck while feeding. 



I M'ish to say, right here, tliat I believe what has been said about manufac- 

 turers combining to secure advantage of the wool-grower is unsupported by 

 proofs, and, as Ur. Kandall once expressed it, "The manufacturers have been 

 as much sinned against as sinning. There is no more intelligent, honorable, 

 public spirited, and liberal class of business men in the country. The one-third 

 rule of shrinkage was adopted by them at an early day, when but very little 

 domestic wool came unwashed into market. It was brought in usually by own- 

 ers of small lots, who took no care of their sheep. The wool was not only often 

 filled with wood, dirt, sand, and foreign matter, but it was often out of condi- 

 tion ; here a fieece cotted, there one jointed, and again one filed with burs. It 

 was not convenient to classify these Avith good washed wools, nor was it obliga- 

 tory on any body to encourage their production. Under such circumstances 

 the one-third rule of dockage met the case fairly enough." 



As soon as manufacturers became convinced that the feeling among flock 

 masters against the washing of sheep sprung from legitimate motives, and 

 indicated a settled purpose, instead of a mere freak, they met it not by refus- 

 ing to buy, or by holding to an unjust rule, but in a fair and business like way. 

 I can say the same for the buyers in many instances, for they are substantially 

 the agents of manufacturers. We are not yet settled on a proper basis for 

 buying or handling wool, nor shall we be, until it is bought and sold, as wheat 

 and other grain, on its merits ; for no two crops of wheat are alike as to quan- 

 tity of foul seed in it. The buyer should be a good judge of its quality and 

 cleanliness, and this they will soon acquire. What should we have done last 

 winter, my wool growing friends, but for the untiring labors of the Secretary 

 of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, Mr. John L. Haves, who 

 did the work which we, as wool growers, were not sufficiently organized to do 

 for ourselves, when Wood's tariff bill was so cunningly prepared and supported 

 by English capital no doubt. It was the man vs. money and time that was 

 freely spent at Washington to defeat it. There was a vast amount of work 

 connected with the overthrow of that bill, which Mark S. Brewer could not do, 

 for he did not occupy the position of representing a great interest, backed by 

 an organization, as did John L. Hayes, assisted by Wm. G. Markham, of 

 Avon, N. Y., as representing the National Wool Growers' Association. Every 

 wool grower in these United States owes to John L. Hayes a debt of gratitude 

 they cannot too fully express. Yes, and to our 9,000 sets of machinery kept 

 in motion by these manufactures we owe our 35,000,000 sheep, whose manure 

 doubles the product of the wheat land on which they are raised ; whose flesh is 

 called the most nourishing of animal food, and which by their influence iu 

 lessening the cost of animal food to our whole population, may be said to far 

 more than pay the increased cost of clothing to our people caused by the pro- 

 tective duty on wool. It seems almost useless to advance an argument in favor 

 of improving the sheep of our State in the face of such rapid advances as are 

 everywhere to be seen within the last few years. But I will add a word for 

 those who are doubtful of the benefit of such improvement. I will simply give 

 my personal experience in brief. 



