Mi 
-H i ? CJ 
*r ] i 
jtiOB-AiLi MB Vt 
“'A/ 
s ?r 
\n> w '.n ! ‘:p 
■r-viA’V tJ- -- 
i 
lasbitntrru. 
n. S. RANDALL, LL. D., EDITOR, 
Of Couti.ano Vili.ack, Corti-and County, Nkw York. 
WOOL AND WOOLEN TARIFF. 
A Letter from Edward Harris. 
WOONROCKKT, It. I., A tig. It!, 1870. 
Hon. Henry 8. Randali, Pros't. Wool Growers' 
National Association, Cortland Village, N. Y. 
Dear Sir:—I do moat honestly believe tills 
tariff on wool and woolcna, &c., if continued, 
will ruin my bosiueasns well as the business of 
growing lino wool in ibis country; and I only 
wish t eould convince yon and the gentlemen 
with whom you arc associated, of the fact. This 
tariff imposes a duty cm clothing or the finer 
grades of wool or 110 to 120 per cent; on coal 
$ 1 . 25 , (gold,) per not ton, say 80 per cent: salt for 
scouring our wool, 100 per Cent ; olive oil 25 cents 
per gallon (gold,) say 2.7 to 10 per cent; on other 
articles which enter Into the cost of making our 
goods, say from 20 to 75 per cunt. Now this duty 
on wool enables the English and German manu¬ 
facturer to buy his wool for less than one-half 
or what we have to pay for our wool—provided 
we imported the same—and to t he duties we pay 
on the artiolea which enter into the cost of mak¬ 
ing those goods; and it. gives the foreigner a 
great advantage over us (as manufacturers.) 
Well, now these cheap goods come to our mar¬ 
ket, in all ways, undervalued, smuggled, &e., io. 
and even If the fine goods paid the full duty, it 
is not more than 50 to 00 per cent ; it don't aver¬ 
age 40 per cent. In my opinion. These goods so 
imported, make the price of your fine wool, as 
you can sell the manufacturer (for any length of 
time) only at such prices as enable him to com¬ 
pete with the foreigner. If all these duties were 
taken off, including the duUeaon wool. I believe 
wool would rise I he world over. You allow ear- 
pet and blanket wool to come in at about 15 per 
cent—and wlmt Is the result? 
Coarse wool Is higher, and constantly growing 
higher in proportion to flue wool. Now 1 be¬ 
lieve, If the tariff Is continued, there will be no 
fine goods made In this country In a short time, 
and no lino wool will bo needed, 1 believe, as a 
principle, duties on tho raw material do not help 
the producer ; but If anything docs give him any 
advantage, it Is a duty on tho manufactured ar¬ 
ticle, by enabling the manufacturer to purchase 
and successfully compete with the foreigner. 
After all, as to a protective tariff, I believe men 
of enlarged views, Impurthtl and far-seeing, aro 
beginning to sec the Injustice of protecting by 
law one tnun in Ids business at the expense of 
hundreds if not thousands of his neighbors and 
fellow men. And whatever is wrong in itsell 
cannot benefit tho community, H a rovanuo 
tariff of 25 pc cent, on tho manufactured goods 
was Imposed, instead of tho present one, and all 
articles which enter into the cost, of goods, in¬ 
cluding wool, were free, l belie’.'*! It would be hot¬ 
ter for your aiMl my Interest, and a great deal hot¬ 
ter for our fellow citizens generally and tho 
whole country. Even it wo admit,-for argument, 
a protective tariff is Just and equitable, In the ar¬ 
rangement of It there is no Justice or equity. 
Those that need (what they call protection) tho 
most, get the least. It is the wealthiest monop¬ 
olists that, need the toast and got. the most. 
What: advantage is it to a York State or Ohio 
farmer to pay fifty cents per square yard and 
thirty-five per cent, ad valorem on Ins carpet? 
Does not the European market govern die price 
of his wheat, corn, buttor, cheese, &c. ? What 
advantage does ho gain by a duty of from fifty 
to tlve hundred percent, oil bis iron and steel? 
What advantage docs a poor man gain by a pro¬ 
tective duty of $125 per net ton, In gold? Do, 
my friend, look into this matter, and if you find 
It wrong, give your mighty Influence to have it 
righted. I remain, your friend, 
Edward Harris. 
Remarks,—* While we have not opened 
our columns to promiscuous assault on the 
wool and woolen tariff, we have never been 
disinolined to give a hearing, to a fair and 
reasonable extent, to those of its opponents, 
who possess extensive experience in the 
branches of industry involved who are 
recognized as the representative men on 1 hist 
subject, of at least a portion of those en¬ 
gaged in the same industries—aud who, 
though interested, are believed to be sin¬ 
cere in tlmir opinions. All these fpmlilica- 
tions we willingly concede to Edward Har¬ 
ris, He has grown old in practical manu¬ 
facturing. He is the largest individual wool 
manufacturer in the United Stales, and in 
his line of goods is unsurpassed. He is pre¬ 
eminently not only the representative, but 
the leader of thosa manufacturers wjto op¬ 
pose the wool tariff, and hist winter headed 
the “ Rhode Island Petition," so-called, to 
Congress, asking that it might he so modi¬ 
fied “that fine wool may come into the 
country at as low rates of duty as the car¬ 
pet wools now do.” And we fully believe 
him to be sincere in his views. 
We are glad to place on the record the 
argument of such a man—for it must be pre¬ 
sumed to be the best one which the case ad¬ 
mits of—in favor of the proposition that the 
wool tariff is injurious to the wool grower. 
What is that argument? He says the duty 
on wool enables the foreign manufacturer to 
buy it “for less than one-half” what our 
manufacturers pay. He says if fine woolen 
goods paid the full duty, it would not ex¬ 
ceed 50 to 60 per cent—in his opinion it 
docs not average 40 per cent. Wo will take 
either figure. If then the duty oti wool was 
abolished, and the duty on clothes abolished, 
I or reduced, it follows as a matter of course, 
that both could come into our markets just 
} as much cheaper as the amount of duty 
taken off. 
Let us exemplify this and the practical 
result to the grower, in the case ot Buenos 
Ayres or Mestiza wools—by far the most ex¬ 
tensive competitors of American clothing 
wools. The average price of those wools, 
at place of export, from 1855 to 1865 in¬ 
clusive, was 13 cents per pound. Foreign 
port charges and export duty averaged 3 
cents per pound. Expense of transporta¬ 
tion averaged 27}-£ per cent., or 3.57 cents 
per pound. This included the entire cost 
except U. S. duties of getting the wool en¬ 
tered in New York—making such cost 18.57 
cents per pound in gold. Adding the exist¬ 
ing duty of 10 cents per pound and II per 
cent, ud valorem, which would come to 11.43 
cents per pound, the cost of entering the 
same wool in New York was 30 cents per 
pound in gold. Now if the growing of 
clothing wool in our country can scarcely 
he maintained against the competition of 
Buenos Ayres wool sit 30 cents per pound, 
how could it possibly stand against the com¬ 
petition of the same wool at a very small 
fraction over cents per pound ? 
But. Mr. Harris “ believes wool would 
rise the world over,” if all our duties on it 
were taken off. In proof of this extraordi¬ 
nary proposition he only adduces the fact 
that class three wool, under the present 
duties, (which he estimates at about 15 per 
cent.,) is “constantly growing higher in pro¬ 
portion to fine wool.” Assuming these facts 
to bo true, vvliat analogy is there between 
the two cases? The production of fine 
wool, “ the world over," is decidedly iu ex¬ 
cess of the demand, and every market is 
glutted with it which admits foreign line 
wool duty free or at low rates of duty. It 
is too obvious to require proof, that the mar 
kets of the United States would at once he 
glutted and continue to be glutted with 
South American clothing wool if our duties 
were taken off. On tho other hand, the 
product of class three wool does not exceed 
the demand. 
The increase of production has certainly 
not exceeded the increase of consumption 
for the last few years, and it is not probable 
limit it has equaled it. These circumstances 
fully account for the fact that coarse wool 
has been growing higher in proportion to fine 
wool, without resorting to any unsupported 
theory of explanation. We wish to treat 
Mr. Harris with entire respect, hut we can¬ 
not help asking him if he can possibly be 
serious in the belief that the prices of our 
clothing wools would he advance*l by ad¬ 
mitting competing wools duty free, which 
abundant experience lets shown would give 
satisfactory profits to their producers uL 
home at 13 cents per pound, or delivered in 
the port, of New York at 18.57 cents per 
pound? And be it remembered that Buenos 
Ayres alone cun readily supply and glut, our 
clothing wool market at those prices. We 
are constrained to express our belief that 
there is no light In which Mr. Harris’s 
proposition can he viewed in which it, does 
not appear unfounded on the face of it. 
Mr. Harris repeats the assertion contained 
in tho “ Rhode Island petition," thut import¬ 
ed fine goods make tho price of our fine 
wool. If this fact is conceded, whut would 
be its effect, with all our duties on clothing 
wool abolished, and with our duties on cloth¬ 
ing goods reduced to 35 per cent., as now 
proposed by Mr. Harris? Clothing wools 
subject to our competition would doubtless 
rise somewhat in foreign markets. But there 
is not the least probability that those of 
Buenos Ayres would rise above the average 
prices from 1855 to 1865 inclusive, because 
they were profitable to the grower at those 
prices and would be so again—because there 
is an almost illimitable space for the exten¬ 
sion of their production—and, consequently, 
because the competition among their pro¬ 
ducers would keep them down to merely re¬ 
munerating prices. 
On the other hand, the reduction of our 
duties on foreign clothing goods would he, 
according to law, 25 per cent,—according to 
Mr. Harris’s estimate, after making deduc¬ 
tions for supposed under valuation, smug¬ 
gling, &c., it would be 15 per cent. Labor 
and capital are materially cheaper in Europe 
than here. Wo believe, taking the facts 
together, that foreign clothing goods could, 
with equal profit, he imported materially 
cheaper than now : and we have had in the 
past abundant proofs to how narrow a mar¬ 
gin European manufacturers are willing to 
reduce their profits for the purpose of break¬ 
ing down our manufactures. It is the firm 
opinion of a decided majority of our wool 
manufacturers, and we believe that it is un¬ 
doubtedly true, that under the exigencies of 
the last three years it has required the woolen 
tariff piled on top, so to speak, of Iho wool 
tariff, to Interpose a sufficient, harrier to save 
their interests from destruction. And if 
foreign imported goods make the price of 
our line wools, the tariff lias been equally 
necessary to save the producing interest from 
destruction. 
Mr. Harris seems to us to he inconsistent. 
Ho assumes with the broadest latitude of an 
out and out freetrader, that a protective tariff 
is intrinsically wrong, and that “ whatever 
is wrong in itself cannot benefit tho comma 
lUty.” Yet he asks for free wool and 35 per 
cent, duty on foreign cloths! A pure revenue 
tariff is a horizontal one, imposing equal ad 
valorem duties on till imports. If any dis¬ 
crimination is made, it gives the benefit of 
that discrimination to-some interest or body 
of men, and is therefore, so far as it goes, 
above the regular revenue level, a “ protect¬ 
ing by law (of) one man In his business at 
the expense of hundreds if not thousands ot 
his neighbors and fellow-men.” 
If this is not so, if a duty of 35 per cent, 
is not protective and is necessary tor reve¬ 
nue, why not then impose it on foreign wool 
also? Wo distinctly remember, and Mr. 
Harris will distinctly remember that in the 
Joint Committees of Wool Growers and 
Manufacturers which framed the draft of the 
present wool and woolen tariff in 1866, he, 
iu a regular meeting of the two Committees, 
united in a formal proposition made by tho 
Manufacturers’ Committee to agree on a 
tariff on clothing wool materially higher 
than the then existing one — materially 
higher than the 25 per cent, ad valorem 
duty which he now proposes on goods. 
The proposition was rejected, and a coun¬ 
ter one made by the Growers’ Commit¬ 
tee corresponding (except 1 per cent, in the 
ad valorem duty) with the present law. 
The Committees adjourned to consult their 
constituencies. When they met again, the 
proposition was unanimously adopted, and 
Mr. Harris being absent his colleagues at¬ 
tached his name to it, asserting that they 
were authorized by him to do so. The last 
fact lias been repeatedly published, and Mr. 
Harris has made no public denial of it. It 
therefore, stands .as his act. 
We by no means claim that our highly- 
respcclcd friend is to blame for an honest 
change' of opinions. All men have that 
right. But in abandoning the doctrine of 
protection as a moral wrong, it seems to us 
that, he should extend the principle equally 
to all interests. If ho would draw the pro¬ 
ducer light up to tho line of his new theory, 
we fail to see why the manufacturer should 
not he drawn there also. “ It is a poor rule 
that does not work both ways." 
We do not propose here to discuss tho ab¬ 
stract rlghtfuluess of protection. Every 
man’s miml is made up on that subject. Nor 
do wo propose to discuss the provisions 
assailed by Mr. Harris, of the general tar¬ 
iff, in respect to other industries. This de¬ 
partment is devoted exclusively to the wool 
Industry of the country. Mr. Harris has 
given his platform and we will give ours 
without debate. Wo believe In a tariff for 
revenue with reasonable incidental protec¬ 
tion where it is necessary to establish or pro¬ 
mote important, industries, and where it will 
eventually promote the interests of the con¬ 
sumer. Wo have omitted some points made 
by Mr. Harris. Several of them have been 
so often discussed in -- column*, Unit the 
repetition of the argument would be tedious 
to our readers. The most important of them 
wont answered in an article published in 
these columns April 2, 1870. In regard t< 
USEFUL AND SCIENTIFIC NOTES. 
Ziiic-l’oiMouiiiir. 
Zinc tanks or zinc roofs invariably and 
rapidly contaminate water with which they 
come in contact, by the formation of soluble 
salts of the metal, which are exceedingly 
poisonous and apt to produce serious effects 
when introduced into the system. These 
zinc compounds result from the action of 
the dissolved salts of the water upon the 
zinc surface, and but a short time is required 
to produce a noteworthy amount of the dele¬ 
terious ingredient. As water-coolers and 
similar vessels employed for holding water 
for domestic purposes arc frequently lined 
with sheet-zinc, or with iron coated with 
the same melal, it will be Avell to bear in 
mind and to act on the recommendation of 
the Polytechnic Journal, that such vessels 
should be covered with a thin coating of 
asphalt varnish. 
cans keeps its flavor one-quarter better than 
in glass. I never lost any fruit canned in 
tin cans; L have never seen any mold in 
I hem as I have in glass cans. I have canned 
peaches, cherries, tomatoes, blackberries, 
raspberries, etc., and they keep all right. I 
don’t believe there is any danger, if the cans 
are made of good tin ami soldered with tin.” 
Cemeat for Iron and Hume. 
Glycerine and litharge, stirred to a paste, 
hardens rapidly, and makes a durable cement 
for iron upon iron, for two stone surfaces, 
and especially for fastening iron in stone. 
The cement is Insoluble, and is not attacked 
by strong acids. 
ultr ferops. 
CANADIAN BARLEY. 
the position that there is “ no justice or 
equity" in the arrangement of the tariff ns 
between the manufacturers of the different 
classes of wool—that the wealthy monopo¬ 
lists who need the least gel the most.—wo 
can only say that the object of ihe law was 
to place the manufacturers of nil kinds of 
goods und all classes of wool in the same 
situation as if they had their wools duly 
free; and that the duties on class one wools 
were intended to bear the same relation to 
the duties on cloths, and to he no higher 
than the duties on class three wools rela¬ 
tively to the duties on carpets. If our friend 
cun show that this object, was not attained, 
then his complaint is’a just one. But it is 
nfit sufficient to show that there lias been a 
difference in the prosperity of the two 
branches of manufacture, since the enact¬ 
ment of the tariff, because that might be 
produced by wholly different causes. 
The American Knitting Machine. 
Tiie accompanying cut represents the 
American Knitting Machine. This machine 
is intended expressly for family use, and is 
so simple in Its construction and operation 
that any person of ordinary capacity can 
easily understand and successfully work it. 
It. will do a greater variety of work than 
any knitting machine ever offered to the 
public, and equal, if not surpass, any other 
machine in the rapidity with which it. will 
turn off work more perfect, limn any hand 
work. While the great object of the ma¬ 
chine is to take tho place of the slow pro¬ 
cess of knitting stockings by hand, it can 
also be used iu knitting the finest, worsteds 
or yarns into a great variety of useful and 
fancy articles. It is highly recommended 
by premiums taken over other machines at 
different Slate and county fairs, as well as 
numerous testimonials from those who have 
bought and used them. The advertisement 
of the American Knitting Machine Go. will 
he found in this paper, 
We have decided to include the above 
machine in our Premium List. 
There are so many in Canada who take 
the Rural New-Yorker, that are particu¬ 
larly interested in the price of barley, that 
any information you might 
feci disposed to communi¬ 
cate, through your columns, 
in regard to the prospective 
supply in the “ States” and 
probable demand and price, 
will confer a favor on your 
numerous patrons in this sec¬ 
tion. The Slides lmve be¬ 
come nearly ottr only mart 
for this product; but that 
fifteen cents per bushel duly 
diminishes the pricer of our 
barley to tl’mt amount, and 
instead of Americana coming 
in as heretofore, and offer¬ 
ing freely, they buy from 
therr Canadian agents, who 
are not over scrupulous in 
allowing a good margin lor 
themselves. 
The barley crop in Ibis 
section is not as good a sam¬ 
ple ns .ast year, and the av¬ 
erage return per acre, as far 
as heard from, indicates a 
much lighter crop than last 
season. 
Canadian exports of bar¬ 
ley and rye for 1807, were 
0,882,776 bushels ; for 1868, 
4,055,873 bushels; for 1809, 
4,630,069 bushels. The ex¬ 
port for I860 is the total Dominion ex¬ 
port; 1867 and 1868 were the export of 
Quebec and Ontario. The price of barley in 
your issue of September 3d, is quoted in 
Chicago at $1.15 for No. 3, cash. We are 
not a little inquisitive to know liow His that 
our barley, five hundred milt* nearer New 
York or Philadelphia, should he worth only 
half that nrieft m Paris, Canada. M. w. B. 
Puris, Ont., Sept., 1870. 
FIELD NOTES. 
ht Sim 
ine-lttrb. 
PIG-PEN PAPERS. 
Couutuli'uiiiM lor Swine-Herds. 
I am fattening nine pigs and a sow, and 
wish information as to the most profitable 
manner of disposing of them. Wliut is the 
difference In weight., between a live hog and 
the same dressed ? If pork is worth $28 per 
barrel, what ought hogs to be worth per 
hundred, live weight; also after they are 
dressed? An answer to the above inquiries 
will greatly oblige—s. w. j. 
Tli© Best Urnln lor Fniteulua Fla*. 
Will some of your correspondents give 
their opinions, based on experience, ns to the 
best grain for fattening pigs? I feed mine 
corn meal, scalded. I do not think there is 
a much heller feed, Thought 1 would ask. 
—j. c. 
The best food, quality of pork and rapidity 
of fattening considered, we ever gave pigs, 
was boiled pens and potatoes. Without 
looking up analyses to prove or disprove tho 
relative fattening properties of the compound 
with other feed, wo speak of practical and 
profitable results. 
Fi’i’ilina Hoa*. on Brail. 
Geo. Runkel asks in Rural New- 
Yorker, Sept. 3d, what, makes his hogs die 
when tod on bran and shorts. Ilis hogs die 
because bis feed i too rich. If he will feed 
scalded or soaked oats, with a half pint of 
lime to the bushel, his hogs will soon be all 
right.— W. W. Gray, lroque/ie (Jo., IU, 
How Paiinmti Huts are Mail©. 
Tiie process of making Panama ha s is as 
follows:—The leaves of tiie Pandamus, or 
Semi pine, from which these hats arc made, 
are gathered before they unfold, the ribs and 
coarser veins are removed, and the rest, with¬ 
out being separated from the base of the leaf, 
is reduced to shreds. After having been put 
in the sun for a day and tied into a knot, the 
straw is immersed in boiling water until it 
becomes white. Tl is then lmng up in a 
shady place, and subsequently bleached for 
two or three days, after which the straw is 
ready for use. The plaiting Of the straw 
commences at the. crown and finishes at the 
brim, and is a very troublesome operation. 
The hats are made on a black placed on the 
knees, and require to bo constantly pressed 
with the breast. The coarser hat may lie 
finished in two or three days, but, to- finest 
may require as many months.— Mantg'fta- 
hirer and Builder. 
How to >Inke Tin Fruit Cnnu. 
A CORRESPONDENT of the Scicn i i lie Ameri¬ 
can, who has had much experience, writes: 
“I take file best No. 14 tin plate and solder 
with block tin. I have sod some of the 
cans four years, and they are not rusty in¬ 
side or out, and they are just ns good as 
when first used. About the fruits being 
poisoned by the cans T don't pretend to 
know, but if they are, l would just as soon 
cut it as that canned ill glass with zinc tops. 
I have used six glass jars, but don’t want 
any more. The fruit canned iu good tin 
Sent vs. Culture. 
I NOTICED an article, editorial, I suppose, 
in No. 3, present volume, which looks very 
discouragingly for a farmer trying to pro¬ 
cure new and better varieties of grain, such 
ns oats, wheat, &c. Now I cannot look at 
the subject in the same light As for oats, 
there positively is a. vast, difference in the 
yield and quality over common oats with 
the same soil and treatment. I am speak¬ 
ing of Norways. Having sown tlien> for the 
past three years, l know whereof l affirm. 
An extra price for a small quantity of supe¬ 
rior kind of grain is my motto. If it tails 
there is not much loss. If it meets my ex¬ 
pectations l am not sorry. 
Your Illinois correspondent, in speaking 
of a certain new variety of wheat, it seems, 
does not favor the introduction of a new 
kind, which I think is one reason why our 
wheat, crop lias failed ilie past few years— 
move on account of the deterioration of seed 
than the weather, soil, &c. 
I enclose a sample of spring wheat ob¬ 
tained from Oregon last spring. I think 
that no manure, early sowing, harvesting, 
Ac., applied to any other kind of spring 
wheat, would produce anything like such a 
sample its this. The product this year from 
this seed is of the same quality, as near as I 
can perceive. It Is not quite matured yet 
An average head contains from sixty to 
eighty-five full-sized plump grains. It must 
yield well. Such heads of spring wheat I 
never saw. Will let you know the result 
after threshing. 1 do not wish to blow yet. 
I u. vc none for eale.— Badger Boy, Fond 
du Lac, Win, 
Thu samp.e of wheat sent was excellent. 
We do not discourage experiments with new 
Varieties of anything; but we do protest 
against the assumption ln:,t any variety of 
grain or fruit will realize profit without 
proper culture._ 
“wanble” Wheat. 
O. B. Gubkin of Michigan writes us that 
lie has in bis office a stool of “Bramble’’ 
wheat from one grain, with forty-two heads 
Of good length, well filled, and matured on 
the farm of Alva Freer. 
