72 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



Feb. 



ful and happy, and everything appeared in good 

 humor. The cows, quietly chewing their cuds, 

 are all ready with their full quota of milk, in a 

 healthy condition, fit for the diary; not a foot 

 lifted, and nothing lost from the foaming pails. 

 The horses seem to smile and neigh a welcome 

 to their kind-hearted master ; and even the 

 geese and hens join in a merry concert. 

 What more inviting scene presents itself at 

 the twilight hour of some beautiful June day 

 than such a farm yard, the very picture of 

 peace and prosperity ! While in the other, 

 every thing is in a flurry and tumult, a perfect 

 "hurly burly." Cows and oxen dodging this 

 way and that, afraid of a blow or a kick, while 

 the very geese and hens fly in terror from the 

 loud, angry and boisterous shouts or horrid 

 oaths, with which the whole herd is hurried 

 into the barn-yard. Nothing seems calm, 

 quiet or good humored. The agitated and 

 trembling cows chew no cud, but yield their 

 heated milk, entirely unfit for the dairy, and 

 perchance half is lost by a luckless kick of the 

 foot, to be returned by a slap from the milking 

 stool, only to make the poor trembling crea- 

 ture more fearful and uneasy. 



How much need is there that our farmers 

 should learn the secret of making their "barn 

 families" peaceful and happy. It is sad to see 

 bow many farmers permit their animals to be most 

 shamefully abused by rough men and boys, who 

 should not be allowed to have anything to do 

 with the noble animals God has given for the 

 use and comfort of man. Such men and boys 

 are better qualified for the House of Correc- 

 tion than for the farm. Every man will mould 

 and shape the character and disposition of his 

 domestic animals by his own spirit and temper. 

 As he is, so they will be. If his horse, ox or 

 cow is vicious and unmanageable, instead of 

 abusing it, let him blame himself, or rather 

 regulate his own conduct — govern himself — 

 and thereby learn the secret of governing his 

 creatures. G. 



Needham, Mass., Dec, 1868. 



i For the Keio England Farmer, 



BECIPEOCITY AND COMBING W^OOLS. 



The little article which was published in the 

 Farmer of November 28, on this subject, was 

 sent to Dr. Randall by one of his Boston cor- 

 respondents, with the remark, "I send you the 

 enclosed article which (and it Is that which 

 gives it its Importance) 1 judge was written by 



our friend — . — . . What do you think of 



his facts and logic?" 



To the article, which Is published In full in 

 the Rural New Yorker, Dr. Randall appends 

 the following remarks : — 



To the propositions contained in the second para- 

 graph we suhscrilje fully. But the assumption 

 contained in the next one, that "inasmuch as both 

 the States and Canadas do not produce an amount 

 (of long wool) sufficient to supply the wants of 

 our manufacturers," therefore Canada wools if 



brought in free of duty would not affect the market 

 prices of our own, is wholly untenable. Prices 

 rise in proportion to the scarcity of a product. 

 Every pound brought into the United States from 

 Canada, lessens the scarcity in our market, and 

 takes the place of so much domestic wool which 

 our people could and would otherwise grow to 

 supply the entire demand. The C.madas not hav- 

 ing our taxes to pay can, even under our present 

 rate of duties compete with ns in our own markets 

 on not very unfavorable terms. Take off the duty, 

 and instead of being "just as much protected by nur 

 tariff as our own farmers are," the Canadian farmer 

 will be in effect vastly better protected. The cajii- 

 tal invested in sheep production in the United 

 States annually pays to the Federal Goverment 

 about four per cent, in direct or indirect taxes on 

 its entire assessed value. How much additional 

 does it pay in State and local taxes ? These 

 differ in ilitferent Stales and localities, and we 

 have not the means now to estimate the average. 

 Let us assume, conjciturally, that it equals three 

 per cent, of the assessed value. Then we have 

 the United States grower paying seven per cent, for 

 what we may term the use of his own country's 

 markets, while the Canadian grower, with recipro- 

 city in wool, would pa)' nothing for their use! 

 The Canadian grower paying neither our govern- 

 ment taxes nor the duties levied on other toreign- 

 ers, would be the most favored pi'oducer in the 

 world in the United States markets — made so by 

 United States legislation or treaties ! 



How long under such circumstances would !Eng- 

 land remain the "principal long-wool pioducing 

 country in the world ?" If any confidence was 

 felt in Canada that those circumstances would be 

 permanent — i. e. that the United States would 

 msiintain free-trade with Canada and the present 

 duties on the wool of other foreign countries — "the 

 Dominion" would soon become the leading long- 

 wool producing country of the world; and it 

 might even seriously compete with our northern 

 regions in the production of fine wool. Under 

 such a state of things, it would be decidedly ad- 

 vantageous, in a pecuniary point of view, for at 

 least our long wool growers to emigrate to Canada ! 



The attempt to show, inferentiallj', that our home 

 prices on long wool have been depressed by the 

 tarilf, because those prices were higher under reci- 

 procity than now, is supported by no pertinent 

 fact or even argument— but simply by the coinci- 

 dence of the two circumstances. Alone this coin- 

 cidence proves nothing. The commercial, physi- 

 cal and political causes which have depressed the 

 prices of wool since the tai iff" went into effect, are pa- 

 tent to all well informed men. They have been set 

 forth in the resolutions of the National Wool 

 Growers' and Manufacturers' Associations, by simi- 

 lar State associations, and by the agricultural 

 press. They never have been denied, or so far as 

 we have seen, questioned. 



We have, in our anxiety to treat with courtesy 

 an honored correspondent, been drawn — rather in- 

 considerately — into an answer to the positions of 

 an anonymous writer in another journal. This is 

 contrary to a rule of editorial action, the reasons 

 for which will probably be obvious to all — and 

 which we do not propose again to violate, under 

 any ordinary circumstances. 



It would appear that "Mentor" Is not known 

 either to Dr. Randall or his correspondent; 

 and though the doctor apologizes for having 

 noticed an anonymous article, we are disposed 

 to think that anonymous articles are more 

 likely to be tested on their own merits than 

 articles to which the name of some one known 

 to fame is attached. By their remarks, how- 

 ever, the doctor and his correspondent have 



