The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-07-20

| England per piece ls2td.
will show by extracts from letters by English
residing at different places abroad which copy from
DR. Ures History of the Cotton Manufacture Of Great Brit
an that far back 1884 the American manufao
turer successfully competed with the British manufacturer
in the markets Of the world.
Mr. George Wilson, OF Rio Janero writes 1--WE fear hat
shall be under the necessity of reshpPng to Rio all the
domestics brought down with the market of
article"
MIR. W. P Patton reports that there in the Manila
market $50 $40 pieces inches wide 1000 pieces
IS inches wide grey of American manufacture; while
the British manufacture for the same period there
only ,S32 pieces"
MIR Gibson, of Aux Cages writes in 1884, THAT the
class of goods Of great Importance
Mr. John Heugh of Malta writes "That the Americans
had in great driven the British article Cotton
domestics) from the market"
MIR. Atkinson of smyrna writes: "Domestics are very
current article of consumption but almost 10000 pieces
Thus ten years ago the American manufacturer
successful rival of the British in the markets of the world
ment he still more undsrses his British competi
in all the markets of Asia well Of South America
The fabrics Of the stark mills in Manchester n. H. have
even been exported to England and sold at rate than
the British manufactures could sell the article Of like
quality for at his own door
The fact s the American manufacturer can produce his
fabrics cheaper than they can be in any other
0d ., Of New S
woocn acurer produces better article Of cloth and
at cheaper rate than the British except in the item Of
dressing and finishing in which the latter excels the for
TO sustain the assertion that the American manufacturer
can successfully compete with his British rival the
the world have the best possible wing authority
being less than the editor Of tho New York Tribune
lie says:
1.-TWO or three Of the Lowell companies which made good
dividends last earned them altogether by manufactu
ring for foreign markets where their products in d
rect competition with the cheap fabrics of England"
Tribune, Aug. H.
How idle then II TO talk Of The necessity OF prohibit
tory protect class of men who able to compete
with the whole world In their peculiar business And
should such be favored with protection which
bes them monopoLe the home market, and thus to com
peI their countrymen pay for the same article Of
cture 100 per than the people of England pay
while they sell the to foreigners for little more than
one half OF what they charge their own countrymenl
Are laws which favor such practices founded upon the
great and unchangng principles of truth justice and equ
ty7 And snch legislation 70 be tolerated IN republican
and exclusive privileges Let the American people re-
spond.
IL is true that Great Britain beat US in manu-
featuring paupers but 1t is not true that she can un-
dersell us in cotton fabrics in the American market.
The tariff therefore, on cotton fabrics works badly
in two respects: il irritates Great Britain that we
should shut her out of the market by prohibitory
uties and il enables the manufacturers here to com
bine and demand high prices, because the whole mar
ket is in their own hands ~
If the psuper labor OF England were so desirable
there is no difficulty in the world tsuch are the IA
ciGes Of the steamships) Of bnuging them from
Leeds Birmingham, Manchester, and other manu-
featuring towns, and placing them IN the shops IN
Lowell.
But this cry is deceptive, and without jast cause
should we desire native American pauper labor, II
will be manufactured TO our hands by these lord