888 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



July 



regulations of the trade. We have made ex- 

 tensive recent inquiries on the subject, and re- 

 gret to say that, in our opinion, there is no 

 doubt that a large proportion, if not even a 

 majority of growers, though protesting against 

 the injustice of these arbitrary exactions, ac- 

 tually submitted to them in selling the clip of 

 1867. 



Let our friend of the New England Farmer 

 make in<iuiries among the wool brokers and 

 dealers at home, in Boston, and ascertain 

 •what proportion of them recognize and act on 

 the one-third shrinkage rule, in their transac- 

 tions in domestic wool. We suspect that he 

 will find that nearly all of them practice the 

 rule, and that they took the lead of the 'coun- 

 try dealers in the matter. As long ago as 

 December, 1865, at the National Convention 

 of Wool Growers and Manufacturers at Syra- 

 cuse, Mr. Geo. W. Bond, one of the most 

 eminent and well informed wool brokers in 

 Boston, or in the United States, declared that 

 "he understood that (the one-third shrinkage) 

 rule commonly prevailed among the buyers 

 and sellers of American unwashed wool — so 

 much so, that in the absence of a contract, the 

 rule would be understood to prevail as a mat- 

 ter of course." And how tenaciously Boston 

 dealers aie disposed to cling to the rule, and 

 resent its infraction among themselves, may 

 be inferred from the following fact. We 

 recommended a Boston house, to which, on 

 the supposition that it sold wool "on its 

 merits," we had advised some lots of wool to 

 be sent in 1867, to advertise that it would so sell 

 in all cases ; stating that by so doing it might 

 confidently anticipate large consignments from 

 the interior of New York. In reply, it soli- 

 cited a favorable notice from us, (which it did 

 not receive,) but declined to comply with our 

 suggestion, on the ground that it might thus 

 ♦•incur the enmity of (wool) merchants !" 



In view of the above facts, we confess it is 

 impossible for us to regard the general com- 

 bination among buyers and dealers — every 

 day accpilring a more systematic organization, 

 and every day adding new force and solidity 

 to its rules by custom — as an evil which cannot 

 longer be safely submitted to, or safely per- 

 mitted to take its own course. Our writings 

 on sheep husbandry, for the last twenty years, 

 will show whether we ever have been either an 

 alarmist or an agitator on this class of suVjjects. 

 We have ever believed that the triumphs of 

 peace, if attainable, are cheaper and better 

 than those of war; and, as a general thin^, 

 ■we have believed them more attainable. We 

 regard an internecine conflict between the dif- 

 ferent branches of the same general interest 

 as especially deplorable. But when one 

 branfh of such an interest persists in disre- 

 garding common sense and common justice in 

 Its dealings with anoUier branch, and, mistak- 

 ing patience and moderation for approaching 

 submission, arrogantly assumes that its will is 

 the settled law in the premises — what remedy 



remains to the injured party but outspoken, 

 energetic and organized resistance ? 



Some persons seem to suppose that inas- 

 much as "it takes two to make a bargain" — 

 inasmuch as the buyer cannot enforce his rules 

 on the seller without the consent of the latter 

 — it is safe to leave the matter entirely to in- 

 dividual action. The history of the last two 

 or three years teaches a different lesson. The 

 buyers' rules have steadily spread wider in 

 their field of operation and been more and 

 more successfully enforced. What else could 

 be expected, when they were supported and 

 acted upon by a powerful and organized body 

 of men, and met with no organized opposition ? 

 Was there not, ostensibly, even some ground 

 for the pretence that they were "established 

 laws of trade" when buyers' association after 

 buyers' association substantially proclaimed 

 them such, and the growers' associations gen- 

 erally remained silent on the subject ? Was 

 it to be anticipated that the scattered sellers — 

 especially the small sellers, who in the aggre- 

 gate grow roost wool — would make an obsti- 

 nate resistance, when they were not encour- 

 aged by their associations to ,do so, when they 

 saw their neighbors giving way to the exac- fl 

 tion, and when they were doubtless led to ap- ■ 

 prehend that they would lose the sale of their 

 clips if they stood out ? But if the same men 

 learn that their neighbors and the wool grow- 

 ers of the country will stand by them ; if they 

 learn that their brethren, as a class, appeal to 

 them to join, as a matter of duty and principle, 

 in protecting the common rights — none but 

 weak-kneed and milk-and-water men, or those 

 who 7KMS< sell on the first chance, from pecuni- 

 ar}' necessity, will abandon the common cause. 



We have spoken of growers' associations, 

 in previous years, remaining silent on this 

 topic. There has been atleastone exception. 

 The New York State Association — after in- 

 viting the State Buyers' Association to join in 

 the deliberation — held a meeting on the sub- 

 ject of the "buyers' rules" at its Annual Fair 

 at Auburn, in May, 1867. Not more than one 

 member of the Buyers' Association attended. 

 One manufacturer was present. After a full 

 discussion, resolutions were unanimously pass- 

 ed setting forth the glaring injustice of "the 

 rules," and of some other buyers' customs. 

 But no reconunendation was made in favor of 

 a general and united defensive movement. It 

 was then hoped that such steps would not be 

 necessary. Many believed that the buyers' 

 resolves, in their public meetings, were "puffs 

 of empty air" — mere expressions of ^eir 

 wishes — and that such absurd and unjust reg- 

 ulations would rfot be insisted on in practice^ 

 at least by country buyers. And for reasons 

 heretofore given by us, a confident expecta- 

 tion was entertained that the National Associ- 

 ation of Wool Manufacturers would soon re- 

 pudiate the obnoxious rules, and thus bring 

 them into disrepute both among city and coun- 

 try dealers. Detesting anything savoring of 



