Mf 
MOORE'S RUSAL (NEW-YORKER. 
~*=c 
MARSH 46 
THE NATIONAL WOOL GROWERS’ ASSO¬ 
CIATION. 
Since the calling of the National Wool 
Growers’ Associat ion in Syracuse, in De- 
oeraber last, we have received a number of 
inquiries concerning it—chiefly in regard to 
its constitution, conditions and cost of mem¬ 
bership, and to the advantages which would 
accrue to the wool growers of States now 
having no State associations, from esta blish¬ 
ing them and connecting them with the 
National organization. 
The National Association was organized 
In 18(55, by delegates representing the State 
Wool Growers’ Associations of Wisconsin, 
Illinois, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, 
New York, Vermont and the New England 
Association, embracing all the New Eng¬ 
land States. The Constitution, unanimous¬ 
ly adopted, vested ( lie government of the 
Association in an Executive Committee, 
consisting of tin; President, Vice-Presidents, 
Secretary, Treasurer, and one additional 
member, to be elected aunually by each of 
the represented Associations. These addi¬ 
tional members were subsequently in¬ 
creased to two from each State Association. 
The Vice-Presidents consisted of the Presi¬ 
dents of the represented Associations. 
Thus, practically, all these Associations 
have an equal voice In the government- 
each being represented by three persons 
chosen by itself. Those provisions were ex¬ 
tended to all State Wool Growers’ Associa¬ 
tions w'hieh might thereafter be formed. 
At the late meeting of the National Associ¬ 
ation at Syracuse, its Constitution was so 
amended as to authorize its Executive Com¬ 
mittee, at its discretion, to appoint a Vice- 
President in any St ate not having a State 
Wool Growers’ Association. 
This plan of action, through a quasi legis¬ 
lative body chosen by State Associations, 
was the only one which could give a truly 
national and reproBentat ive character to the 
National Association. If questions were to 
bo determined, officers elected, &c., by a 
vote of the members of t in* Association in 
mass, the locality where the Association 
was held could always entirely com rol its 
aotion; its operations would often be too 
slow to meet the emergency, and the neces¬ 
sary frequency of meetings, to transact 
business now prompt ly disposed of by cor¬ 
respondence, would impose uu intolerable 
burthen, both hi time and expense, on the 
body of members. It. is not too much to say 
that the workings of the present plan have 
given ent ire satisfaction to the represented 
Associations, and to the wool growers of ( lie 
country generally. Not a shadow of local 
or personal prejudice or jealousy has ever 
tinged its proceedings. Its Executive Com¬ 
mittee has never disagreed on a final con¬ 
clusion. 
All members of State wool growers’ asso¬ 
ciations are, from that fact, members of the 
National Association; and at the general 
meetings of the latter all woo) growers, from 
whatever St ate, or whether connected with 
any other wool growers’ associations or not. 
have been allowed to participate as fully in 
the proceedings as members. Indeed, the 
same courtesy has been extended to per¬ 
sons having interest in sheep husbandry, or 
engaged in relative industries. The officers 
and other members of t he Executive Com¬ 
mittee servo without any compensation. 
Members of the Association pay no initia¬ 
tion foe. When money 1ms been raised — 
and this has chiefly been confiuod to defray¬ 
ing the necessary expenses of delegates or 
committeemen employed away from homo 
on the business of the Association — it has 
been raised by voluntary subscription, and 
usually iu the State of such committeeman's 
residence. 
The advantages to accrue to wool growers 
of States now having no State' associations, 
from establishing them and commoting 
them with the National organization, de¬ 
pends entirely upon the fact whether those 
institutions have proved useful and are 
likely to prove useful in the future. If the 
State associations led to important improve¬ 
ments in the breeds of sheep, as they un¬ 
questionably did, prior to the late tempor¬ 
ary overthrow of wool growing husbandry 
—and as they will unquestionably do again 
on the revival of that husbandry—t hen it is 
clearly the interest of the growers in all the 
States where that husbandry is an import¬ 
ant one to possess and foster such associa¬ 
tions. 
And what claims has the National Wool 
Growers’ Association, on the score of past 
or prospective usefulness, to the adhesion 
and support of the State associations ? To 
answer this question properly requires 
allusion to a few leading facts in its past 
history'. On all occasions of framing new 
wool tariffs in Congress previous to that of 
1R<57, the wool growers either did not act. at 
all or they acted without any general con¬ 
cert. They had no definite and adopted 
plan, based on a general and thorough in¬ 
vestigation of all the facts on which their 
proper amount of protection depended, to 
place before Congress and the country. 
They were hemmed in between hostile wool 
manufacturers and anti-protectionists—the 
former, at least, far better provided with 
one-sided statistics. They always had zeal¬ 
ous and able friends in Congress, but they 
were chiefly professional men, and could 
not be expected to know what the wool 
growers’ interests actually needed better 
than they knew themselves. Thus acting, 
to a considerable extent, on conjectural 
data, the effects of legislation were neces¬ 
sarily uncertain; and when it appeared 
most favorable to the wool growers, it was 
generally found to contain loop holes for 
easy evasion. 
The establishment, of the National Wool 
Growers' Association opened a new era in 
all those matters. It combined and brought 
into co-operation a body of men greatly 
more numerous t han the wool manufactur¬ 
ers, quite as strong iu the sympathies of the 
people, and—we suppose there is no partic¬ 
ular barm ill saying—at least, as strong iu 
Congressional nominating committees and 
at the ballot box. fts first step was to make 
peace with the manufacturers; first, be¬ 
cause that course was intrinsically right, 
and, second, because it could not obtain ad¬ 
equate protection without their help; and 
for precisely the same reasons t he manufac¬ 
turers met its advances half way. The first 
result of their co-operation was the wool 
and woolen tariff of 1807. The Executive 
Committees of the two Associations, 
through their sub-committees, spent more 
thou six months In collecting t he necessary 
informat ion, and in maturing and agreeing 
upon the draft of that law. They met, dif¬ 
fering widely in respect to some of Its pro¬ 
visions. Tills was especially the case iu 
regard to i lie duties to be imposed on for¬ 
eign competing wools, and the st ruggle on 
this question was a protracted one. Hut 
the growers Insist ed that the rates ef duty 
which wece finally adopted, and which now 
form a part of the law, would no more than 
place t hem on an equality wit h t heir foreign 
competitors in our markets, and they pre¬ 
ferred tlo arrangement to any one which 
would not produce t hat, effect. Finally ac¬ 
cumulated proofs in regard to the cost of i 
the domestic production of wool, and “pa- 
lient and Intelligent scrutiny ” in regard to 
the general facts, rendered the justice of 
the growers’ claims bo undeniable t hat the 
manufacturers’ committee manfully assent¬ 
ed to them, notwithstanding the anticipa¬ 
ted land subsequently experienced) violent 
opposition of a considerable body of wool 
manufacturers. 
Without this co-operation of the manu¬ 
facturers, we should not have hud the wool 
tariff of 1807. Without the National Wool 
Growers' Association, we should not have 
Bccurodthat co-operation. This tariff was 
strongly endorsed by all the growers’ State 
Associations and met the approbation of 
the great body of wool growers throughout 
the United States. And, notwit hstanding 
the temporary prostration of wool industry 
which followed, that confidence has never 
been withdrawn or wavered. 
Again, when a remarkable am! unprece¬ 
dented state of things enabled foreign 
growers of competing wools to profitably 
kill their sheep iu order to enter their wool 
on the skin at our ports at greatly reduced 
duties, thus producing an important evasion 
of the tariff, (how important it was consid¬ 
ered by the enemies of the tariff will appear 
from some exaggerated assertions of the N. 
Y. Economist published below) it required 
but a plain and fair statement, of the facts, 
sustained by proper proof, made by the Ex¬ 
ecutive of the National Wool Growers’ As¬ 
sociation, and assented to hy the Executive 
Of the National Association of Wool Man¬ 
ufacturers, to procure the passage of the 
“ skin wool amendment,” as it is ordinarily 
called, which imposed the same duties on 
skin us on fleece wool. All this was prompt¬ 
ly done at the mere cost, of drawing up a 
memorial, and of writing t h roe or four dozen 
letters. Does any one believe that this im¬ 
portant amendment could have been pro¬ 
cured t hus readily and easily at the instance 
of individuals not authoritatively repre¬ 
senting any body but themselves, and bit¬ 
terly opposed, as it was, by a strong body 
of manufacturers outside of the National 
Association of Wool Manufacturers? 
Another branch of the Government has 
recognized the representative character of 
the Growers’ and Manufacturers’ National 
Association. The Secretary of the Trcas- 
ury submitted to the examination of com¬ 
mittees appointed by those bodies, the 
standard samples of wool required by the 
Act of 1867. to be placed in the Custom 
Houses to determine the classification of, 
and consequently the amount of duties to 
be levied on, foreign competing wools. He 
;tl;.u allowed similar committees to make an 
investigation in the Custom Houses in re¬ 
gard to the manner in which that classifica¬ 
tion was practically carried out. We might 
enumerate numerous other cases where the 
National Associations have obtained con¬ 
cessions, or secured advantages from vari¬ 
ous quarters, which would have been out of 
the reach of individuals, or, in all probabil¬ 
ity, of State Associations. And the same is 
true of the Growers’ Associat ion when act¬ 
ing alone. We believe, as already said, that 
the latter has discharged all its duties to 
the public satisfaction. The efforts which 
it could make within its province have been 
generally successful. It has never divided 
on any question. It lias never, so far as wo 
know, had a noticeable defection from its 
ranks. Tho vitality which it has retained, 
through years of adversity to tho wool 
growing interest, was emphatically illustra¬ 
ted at tin* late convention at. Syracuse. 
Never, at. any previous meeting, were so 
many States represented; and if the tariff 
of 1807 is “let alone” by Congress, it will 
be greatly due to the firm and spirited co- ! 
action of the wool growers and mauufac- | 
timers on that occasion. 
If the above is a correct statement of 
facts, there can be no reasonable doubt that 
every sound Consideration of policy re¬ 
quires tho multiplication of State Wool 
Growers’ Associations, and their firm con¬ 
nection with tho National Association. 
Eac.li will contribute to the strength and 
influence of the other, and thus add to the 
common good and to tho common safety. 
“IMPROVED CHESHIRES.” 
8. 8. Gardner, Watertown, N. Y., sends 
the Farmers' Club of the American Insti¬ 
tute Die following letter: 
8o much has been said through the news¬ 
paper press iu regard to this breed, that 1 
feel it a duty to give the public tin; infor¬ 
mation 1 have never seen published, in re¬ 
gard to the origin of this popular breed of 
nogs, and to correct a stat ement made last. 
Spring by F. D. C’tmTTS. T. II. Stanlev of 
Cambridge, Mass., wrote to the American 
Institute Farmers' (dub: ‘•Sometimes 1 
see t he hogs bred in Jefferson Count v, N. Y., 
called the Cheshire, and sometimestbo Jef¬ 
ferson County breed. 1 should like to know 
which is correct, and if t here were ever any 
hogs imported into this country from 
Cheshire, England.” In reply F. |>. Cin- 
Tissaid: “There is a family of hogs in 
Jefferson County, N. Y„ which lias been 
bred long enough to be called a breed, 
which was established by crossing t he York¬ 
shire with the native breed, and subsequent¬ 
ly with hogs imported from Canada. They 
are a good breed of white hogs, and are 
called Cheshire by a number <if Dio breeders 
Of them. This is a very fanciful mum-, but. 
when the pretension in coupled with It that 
t hey are Cheshire, and descended from hogs 
imported from Cheshire, England, then 
the name is very improper, ft would be 
better t o call them Jefferson County, and be 
truthful and consistent, and follow the ex¬ 
ample of Chester County, Pa., as they have 
done with their pigs, the Chester County 
whites. I do not believe any connection can 
be shown between the so-called Chesbires 
and any hog in Cheshire, England. The 
breeders of Jefferson county have done a 
good tiling, and they need not be ashamed 
to give their county the credit of it.” 1 think 
Mr. Curtis must have received his informa¬ 
tion from breeders iu the south part of this 
county, who breed by crossing the York¬ 
shire with the improved native hogs, and 
sell their pigs under the name of Jefferson 
County breed, whereas the original breeders 
still adhere to the name of improved Chesh¬ 
ire*—the name they gave them at the state 
fair held in Utica, N. Y., in 1868. As to the 
relation this breed has to the Chesbires of 
England, the public can judge by the state¬ 
ment I haw from T. T. Cavanaugh, of 
Watertown, N. V'., who is the originator of 
the improved Cheshire hogs. “Some fifteen 
or eighteen years ago (the exact date cannot 
be readily ascertained) Mark Rice, of this 
county, bought a boar pig of Mr. WoOLFOltD 
of Albany. Mr. Woodford said this pig 
was from a pair of hogs he imported from 
Cheshire, England. Mr. Rice crossed this 
pig with his native hogs, breeding in for a 
few ynars, lueli mudeu great improvement 
in them.” I n 1860 Mr. Cavan atom bought a 
boar pig from the stock of Mr Rick, that, 
he crossed wit h a sow pig he bought, of some 
dealers instock who imported from Canada 
a sow t hat they called a ('heshire sow. From 
this pair Mr. Cav an a non raised a boar and 
two sow pigs. The improved Clieshires are 
highly prized bj' breeders in the West and 
South. Col. F. D. Curtis, writing in tiie 
New York Republican of the exhibition of 
swine at our last State fair, very truly states 
that "some of the breeders of the Cheshire 
and Jefferson County hogs are in danger of 
bringing that breed into disrepute by mix¬ 
ing them with hogs of different characteris¬ 
tics and points, and still adhering to the 
name. In this way confusion arises, ami a 
difference which is noticeable and which 
begets disgust. A breed is a breed, and for 
why ? Because they (the specimens) have 
characteristics which are similar and which 
are perpetuated from parents to progeny; 
they become thorough-bred when their pe¬ 
on I uni ties arc transmitted in the blood with¬ 
out difference or change. This principle is 
obviously upset when we see in the same 
litter of pigs some with upright ears—n dis- 
t inetive. point in the Jefferson County breed 
--ami others with lap ears, which marks t hy 
Chester white and largo Yorkshire. Hum- 
buggery may flourish for a season, but tho 
end will come." Some breeders in this 
county are crossing Yorkshire with Chester 
whites, and others, fts before stated, are 
crossing Yorkshire with the improved na¬ 
tive hogs, and are selling them under the 
name of Jefferson County hogs, for they 
dare not sell them under the name of im¬ 
proved Chesbires. The above are tho prin¬ 
cipal reasons why the breeders of the orig¬ 
inal improved Cheshire* still adhere to the 
name of improved Chesbires, and protest 
against any change of name, but call them 
the improved Chesbires of Jefferson Coun¬ 
ty. The distinctive characteristics and 
points of excellence iu the improved ! ’hesh- 
ires, and which the breeders of the genuine 
adhere to, are these: They are pure white; 
flue, thin hair; small, thin,erect ears; short, 
dishing face; short leg, with good length of 
body; heavy ham and shoulder, light tail, 
and of very fine bone for a large hog. They 
arc good breeders, and take flesh rapidly at 
any age. The breeders of these hogs claim 
t-iiat they will make, more pork, according 
to the feed, than any other known breed, 
( ii ah. D. Braguon was called upon to 
comment upon the above paper, and said, 
substantially: —There is one thing which 
t ho correspondent does not establish—that 
the import ation from Cheshire, upon which 
this improvement is based, was not York¬ 
shire; for, with Mr. Cuhtih. I tlo not know 
of, have never read of, nor seen, a distinctive 
breed of swine known as Chcshires. Tho 
description given of the ” Improved Chesh¬ 
ire* ” answers more nearly to Yorkshire 
than to any other breed I know. The im¬ 
portation may have boon made from Chesh¬ 
ire, and yet have been Yorkshire. Because 
a pig is purchased in Hamilton Co., O., or 
in Jefferson Co., N. Y., it. docs not follow 
that it may not bo of the Suffolk, Berkshire, 
Essex or any other breed; nor is it proper 
to assort it is a Hamilton Co. or Jefferson 
Co. breed, (unless such ft distinctive breed 
exists,) because it came from either of those 
counties. But tho name is of little conse¬ 
quence, so long us the public and legitimate 
breeders are protected by It. I can see the 
propriety of calliug the results of this breed¬ 
ing by Mr. CAVANAUGH “Improved C'hesh- 
ires,” instead of the “ Jefferson Co. Breed,” 
provided they are distinct; for if a Jeffer¬ 
son Co. farmer breeds Chester Whites and 
Yorkshires, or crosses either on native 
stock, ho may sell the progeny as “Jeffer¬ 
son Co.Breed,” without the purchaser hav¬ 
ing any power of redress legally, albeit he 
may have supposed himself purchasing the 
breed known as “Improved Chesbires.” 
Doing so, ho swindles the purchaser, just 
us hundreds of men have been swindled 
by purchasing “Chester Whites,” in Ches¬ 
ter, Pa., which were in no wise related to 
tho breed distinctively known as Chester 
Whites. My friend t'URTIS would be likely 
to protest against any change of the name 
of his ” Victoria” breed that would make it 
“ Saratoga Co. Breed,” and enable his neigh¬ 
bors to sell mongrels, no wise related to his 
pigs, in competition with him. The pro¬ 
priety, therefore, of adhering to the name 
by which this breed was originally known, 
and under which it has been bred and dis¬ 
seminated, seems to me to be apparent. 
Mr. Curtis said;—The general statements 
of the paper read are correct. I have seen 
the big hogs described, and am acquainted 
with the leading breeders. I know before 
that there was a tradition in Jefferson Co. 
that the swine spoken of were descended 
from Cheshire, England. Mr. A. 8. Clark 
told me years ago that they originated from 
a sow brought from Cheshire, England, and 
that he had crossed t hem upon hogs import¬ 
ed from Canada and improved them, and 
he gave them the name of “Improved 
Cheshire.” Now, because the tradition is 
changed to a pair of pigs imported from 
Cheshire, that does not prove the breed to 
be Cheshire, because Yorkshire pigs could 
be imported from Cheshire, and I am still 
unconvinced that there ever was a thor¬ 
oughbred breed of hogs known as Cheshire. 
There is no objection to the name Cheshire, 
if the pretension regarding the origin and 
breed be left off. J trust the coming con¬ 
vention of swine-breeders will settle all 
these vexed questions, and that our Jeffer¬ 
son county friends will be on hand to vindi¬ 
cate their excellent swine. I 
