7kt RURAL. NEW-YORKER 
1531 
Truth About Wool 
Substitutes 
O X page 1414 “S.” makes an effort to 
justify the use of shoddy in clothing. 
He tells us that “it is not a crime, hut a 
necessity,” because wool is scarce, that 
“most folks want, a pure wool suit for a 
shoddy price,” and that “any first-class 
dealer will guarantee his clothing to be pure 
wool.” I leave this to the reader to settle, 
after asking himself how many “folks” know 
shoddy, and how many “first-class dealers” 
of that sort he has met, and remark 
most people get a shoddy suit at a pure wool 
price. The very best linguist and logician 
on earth will engage in a hopeless task 
he tries to justify shoddy as it is used and 
sold now. 
Take a look from the sheep pastures. On 
them are sheep owned by men. women and 
children. Many farmers' widows have them, because 
they are a gentle stock to keep. They cost money, 
care and watching. They are on high ground and 
in plain sight of the assessor, listed for taxation at 
good figures. They are eating on valuable land, and 
later will need hay and corn, at a cost of high-priced 
labor. They are growing nice fibers to pay their 
owners for the outlay, and to clothe human beings 
in respectable, serviceable raiment, but all the efforts 
of their keepers, the horns on the old rams, and 
shotguns and Winchesters cannot protect them 
against the competition of shoddy. 
At present there is a revival of interest in sheep 
by the wool growers, and a promise of stability 
for the industry. There have been such promises 
before, but politics sent many dejected sheep to the 
stockyards, and strewed bones and wool locks over 
the fields. There is no line of industry that men 
will follow unless it pays, and when gentle, de¬ 
pendent sheep are neglected they perish. Here is 
good blood now of all the breeds, with owners able 
and willing to quadruple the sheep, but they see an 
enemy as deadly as politics threatening. The un¬ 
restricted use of shoddy is a crime against the sheep. 
What maker of woolens will pay the real worth of 
virgin wool when he can substitute it with the refuse 
of wool or cotton? What use has he for good fibers 
except to carry poor, short ones? 
Grant that it is right to salvage refuse and make 
some use of it. but all must allow that it is wrong 
to deceive anyone, or let the innocent purchaser be 
deceived by buying salvaged refuse for genuine. 
Take the restrictions off oleomargarine and let it 
sell for dairy butter, and it will kill off most of the 
cows. Let the refuse of wheat and feeds go mixed 
with the flour of the people, and we 
stop sowing wheat. Then as clothing 
sells high now on account of a wool 
shortage, oleomargarine and bread will 
advance because of the shortage of 
genuine raw materials to make them. 
For example, take the cost of a good 
suit as given by “S.” at $70 to $00. 
There are suits half shoddy sold that 
high, but we will allow this suit to be 
all virgin wool. Talk about “the 35- 
cent dollar.” There is not more than 
$5 worth of wool in it, while there is 
profit and pay amounting to $05 to $85. 
Now after a look from the pasture, the 
wool-growers’ end. take a view from the 
suit-buyer’s standpoint. How many know 
what virgin wool is. or what shoddy is. or 
know how to detect the latter? Neither 
the law nor common knowledge is pro¬ 
tection against it. There is not a food 
product, for man or beast, not a 
of hog feed or fertilizer sold in the 
United states that dare carry the de¬ 
ception that every suit of clothes is 
privileged to carry, and there go most 
of the people, of this goodly land, wear¬ 
ing more or less of the rags of others, 
blaming the price and unserviceability 
on the wool-growers. It is only of late 
years that there has been reference to 
shoddy, and all who named it were sat 
down on real hard. Prefacing an 
acrimonious harangue against the 
writer, the Literary Digest remarked 
that I “spoke very disrespectfully 
against shoddy." It told the truth. 1 
have the supremest contempt and loathing for it 
when it passes itself for virgin wool, even as it has 
done on me, after growing wool for 40 years and 
paying a “first-class dealer.” a friend, and an honest 
man, his highest price, with his asseveration that 
“the jobber from whom he bought had guaranteed 
the piece pure virgin wool.” I have seen some wool, 
and worn a few good clothes, and think of the state¬ 
ments made in the defense of shoddy. 
As I remarked, we have the good sheep blood, and 
also willing minds to quadruple the sheep in less 
than 12 years, and clothe every American in home¬ 
grown American wool. A just price as a perma¬ 
nency will warrant the endeavor, and the clothes of 
the people will cost them less than now. Notice the 
disparagement between $5 for wool and $70 to $90. 
Raw wool is now the lowest-priced commodity on 
earth, but substitutes give it no show. Say the wool 
of that suit had cost four times as much, or $20 
instead of $5. and a profit of $50 to $70 would have 
given every man who touched it too much. 
After these views from the pastures and the con¬ 
sumer. take a look from a national economic stand¬ 
point. There is a middle class that is making all 
the profits on wool. If America grew four times 
its present output, the money paid for it would 
circulate among us. If every piece of clotlx and 
garment had a tag. signed by the manufacturer, 
giving percentage of wool, shoddy or cotton, a wool- 
grower would not be deceived, and the whole people 
would know what they are buying. The sheepmen 
a*re flocking, agreeable, and resolved that each of 
the three classes shall have a profit. We are grow¬ 
ing about one-quarter of the raw materials for 
“woolens,” buying about the same from foreign 
lands, and the balance is a product of the 
ragpickers’ hook and the rusty scales in the 
junkman’s deplorable hovel. 
Under the present distress this condition 
must go on. but we have promised ourselves 
that we will raise more sheep, induce others 
to raise them, and together protect them. 
There has been some noise at Washington 
about shoddy, not strong enough to be heard, 
but our voices are improving. We want re¬ 
strictions on wool substitutes that will in¬ 
sure the same safety to all who buy clothes 
now possessed by the buyers of fertilizers, 
and mule and hog feeds. We expect oppo¬ 
sition. but plenty of as hard opposition has 
been overcome there. Opposition to us will 
prove the justness of our cause. There is 
no possible reason why buyers of clothing 
should not know what they are getting in the shape 
of wool—whether it is first hand from the sheep’s 
back or has come in a roundabout way second or 
third hand from the shoddy machine. 
Ohio. W. W. BKYNOLUS. 
Too Many “Side Lines” 
I HAVE been very much interested in the struggle 
for success which was made by “Profiteer,” on 
page 1150, where he gives his account of receipts 
and expenses for 1917, and asks the question: 
“Guilty or not guilty?” As I have had several years’ 
experience along many of the lines which “Profiteer” 
has been trying. I feel that I know something of the 
conditions under which he is working. To my mind 
he has made just one fatal mistake. He has shot 
with a shotgun instead of a rifle. In other words, 
he has been running a sort of experiment farm, 
trying many different lines of agricultural endeavor, 
and has failed to realize the one great principle of 
concentration of effort, which is necessary for the 
best success in any line of agricultural work. The 
advice is often given not to put your eggs all in one 
basket—others say put them all in one basket and 
then watch the basket—but I prefer the latter plan 
with a variation, and would say put your eggs in 
two baskets, back them up with unbounded faith 
and undaunted courage, and then keep one hand on 
each basket. This means that I do not approve of 
plunging; neither do I believe in continuing in the 
“even tenor of my way,” especially when that way 
has proved to be a failure. After a year like 1917. 
if “Profiteer” has kept his books properly, he should 
know what branch of the farm is producing the 
greatest profit, and also which one he likes host and 
is best suited to his local conditions. 
With this information fairly estab¬ 
lished he should cease experimenting 
and get down to the real business of 
farming by making a specialty of one 
or two money crops. Why? Because 
it has been my observation and expei*- 
ienee that it is practically impossible 
for one man to run a profitable dairy, 
poultry, hog, fruit, grain and vegetable 
farm on such a small scale that his labor 
expense amounts to only 8.”10.6S for a 
year. While all these different lines 
may be conducted profitably on the 
same farm when run on a sufficiently 
large scale to warrant an organization 
of trained help, comprising one or more 
men for each department, and the 
whole business supervised by a thor¬ 
oughly trained and experienced busi¬ 
ness farmer, I believe it is practically 
impossible for a man with moderate 
capital and limited farm experience to 
run all lines together on a small scale, 
the largest single item of income being 
less than $050, and make a success of 
the venture. 
Explaining my views in this case we 
will take the item of butter, which sells 
for $4s5.51. This looks like good money, 
and when added to the cattle income 
of $18.65 makes a total of $504.16. 
or an average daily incomes of $l.;?s 
for the year. When you figure the cost 
of keeping the cows and the labor in¬ 
volved. which requires going through 
the same operations each day, feeding, 
.4 Little Itefrexluaent for the Tame Sheep. Fig. }8.}. 
