^26 SHEEP HUSBANDRY IN THE S. Ul H. 



Is it said that oui- manufacturing companies have often been com- 

 pelled to suspend, or break up, even under laws as favorable to them aa 

 those now in operation 1 The reason for this is too pointedly and perti- 

 nently stated by Mr. Lawrence to require any addition at my bands, in 

 the following extract from a letter to me, bearing date April 13, 1847; and 

 it will be seen in the concluding sentence that the bold and manly decla» 

 rations of his preceding letter were not the result of a casual oi- mumentaiy 

 confidence, but are deliberately reasserted : 



" The iimimfliciure of wool has often been disastrous to parties who have embarked iu it 

 for many reasons, two of which are sufficient — a want of capital and a want of skill. These 

 difficulties are being obviated. Capitalists are more ready to embark under certain auspices, 

 and the amount of sliill is very fast iucreasuig, so that this branch is on a footing not to be 

 moved." 



Undisturbed by those changes of vacillating legislation, or those move- 

 ments in the National Legislature pointing to such changes — at one time 

 enormously pampering the manufacturing interest, and leading to over- 

 action and rash adventure — at another, threatening it with disaster and 

 utter subversion — our manufacturers will steadily, nay, ra2-)idly advance. 

 If NOW LET ALONE, they will soon not only " difij foreign competition^'' in 

 the home market, but there is not a single good reason to prevent them 

 from d(fiiing it in the great and opening market of South America, and 

 even in the Old World. Some evils or errors in commercial legislation 

 are less to be deprecated than constant changes. The present Tariff, so 

 far as it affects wool and woolens, is the result of a compromise of inter- 

 ests. It may not be pei'fect in principle or detail. But it does not seem 

 to flagrantly favor or oppress any interest. I speak not in the s])irit of a 

 politician, or of the rej^resentative of an interest or section, when I express 

 the hope that no change will be made or attempted in this portion of the 

 Tariff, until the lapse of years shall bring about other changes requiring 

 ti, or until ample experic7ice shall clearly call for a revision of the system. 



I have spoken of two "margins" to be filled by the American wool- 

 giower — the present deficit in supplying our own manufactories, and sec 

 ondly, the prospective one, as our manufactures increase, so as to overtake 

 and then keep pace with the consumption of an increasing population. 

 The demands of our manufactories will advance pari 2>assti with the ^^;o 

 duction, Mr. Lawrence predicts, for at least fifteen years. Why not foi 

 fifty or a hundred ! Let us glance at the prospective cor-mmption, and see 

 if, independent of exportations, it is hkely to require any curbs or Hmits tc 

 be placed on production or manufacture. 



In the debates in Congress on the Taiiff in 1828-9, Mr. Mallary esti 

 mated the consumption of woolens in our country at $72,000,000 per 



ann. ; $10,000,000 imported; $22,000,00) manufactured; $40,000,000 



home-made. The Committee of the " Friends of Domestic Industry," 

 who met in New-York m 1831, reported that the proportion between the 

 amount of wool worked up in factories to that in families was as 3 to 2 ; 

 that the entire annual product of wool and its manufactures in the U. S. 

 was $40,000,000. These are the only accessible published estimates which 

 now occur to me. 



The Census of }^j40 shows that the value of woolciis made in our many- 

 factories in liiSQ, was $20,696,999. The import of foreign woolers the 

 aame year was $lS,57o,945, and of raw wool* $1,359,445. It should be 

 remarked nov/ever. that the import of woolens is considerably higher than 

 th?t cf ^ny year before or since. Taking the average of the same tbre« 



* '"•kHis ttie average product of 1837-8-9, as in Table 9. The separate import of 1839 ia not before nw. 



