Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-12-10
THE COTTON GOODS TRADE AND PRO
TEcTIoN.


Government printing Office volumInous
and interesting pamphlet containing full
exhibit of "The Cotton Goods Trade of
.the World, and the Share Of the United
estates Therein" 1t is published by the
Department of State; is introduced by
Secretary Blaine in a long review of the
salient facts; and is intended to assist
American manufacturers and merchants to
compete with those of Great Britain, who
in this line of production are the principal
rivals to be encountered. The showings
made by the State Department are very
curious, though the incapacity of Mr..
Blaine to realize the true cause Of Ameri-
can inferiority in foreign commerce renders
his suggestions worse than useless, and
his philosophy futile and vain. The facts
however are sufficiently remarkable to ar
rest the attention OF the American public,
| and when they remember that the case OF
the cotton goods trade is the case OF all
our foreign trade, they will understand
what It is that Protection is doing Tor the
country in its foreign commercial relations.
We will premise that there are about one.
fourth as many spindles in the United
States as in the United Kingdom, and
that consequently the latter, if all things
else were equal, ought to produce not more
than four times as much, nor to possess more
than quadruple our trade. Indeed seeing
that Protection is claimed to be superior
to Free Trade, the American cotton trade
ought to have grown in a far more rapid
ratio than that of Great Britain. But let
us proceed to look at some of the facts.
The statistics given are all for the year
1880, and they are all official. We propose
simply to quote some of the totals in value
of the cotton trade of the United States
and Great Britain with a few foreign conn
tries, and in order to make the illustration
as emphatic as possible we have selected
the countries of the American continent.
For it is evident that these countries are
marked out by their geographical location
for American markets, and that If any
other country has supplanted US in them,
there must be something wrong in our COM
mercial system. We will begin with the
Dominion of Canada. Here, if anywhere,
we ought to be able to meet the British
manufacturer and defeat him, but as fact
we find the cotton imports of England to
be So, III, l65, and those of the United States
81, 766, 10. Here, with every facility for
competition, we are beaten. Take Mexico
next. The imports of cotton from England
last year amounted ts. 81, 4o6, 900; those
from the United States were only 1892, 900.
Ii we cannot secure the trade of Mexico,
if we cannot beat rival who has the ocean
transit against him as well as other draw
backs, how can we expect to compete on
equal terms with that rival in Europe /?
Take Central America next. The imports
of cotton from England were valued at
81, l6l, 600 /; those from the United States
at ST., 736. The West Indies constitute a
still worse case, England having imported
there cotton to the value of 50, $50, 900,
while our trade only reached 1856, SOP.
In South America the same fortune accom-
panies us. England sent the United States
of Colombia IS, l63, 900 of cotton goods.
We imported only $3.50 900. England sold
Venezuela $l,449. GOO of cottons. We
could only sell her $40, BIG.
The trade of Brazil is large and tempt
ing one, and there are plenty of obvious
reasons why our merchants should wish to
obtain the control of it. They have tried
their hand, and this is the result. Last
year England sold Brazil SIT, SS7, 900 of
cotton goods, and we could only sell her
| 1861, 000 worth. That is tremendous
difference, but is not much worse than the
case of Uruguay. England sold Uruguay
cotton goods valued at So 0Sl, 600. We
sold her $4,000 worth. Take the Ar
gentine Republic, again. England's cot
ton bill was S4.Sl6,0 600. Ours was only
S133, 647. So with Chile. England sold
her s., l62, 900 worth. We sold no more
than $217. 500. And these are all countries
at our very doors, so to speak countries
with which, if with any, we should be able
to establish trade supremacy. If we go
further in our investigation we shall fare
worse. China and Japan are in many re.
spects very much nearer to us than to
Great Britain, but there is simply no
comparison between the commercial
achievements of the two countries. The
| cotton exports OF Great Britain to China
last year amounted to nearly $50. 00o, 900
those of the United States to 1913, 600.
The case of Japan is, however, the most
overwhelming. The total foreign imports
to that country reach only about 49,.
500 600; and of that amount England fur.
nished last year Sl2,250, 900, leaving al
the rest of the world less than 81, 500, 600
OF that million and half, however, all we
could supply amounted to S27, 900!
In fact it is disagreeably evident thai
England commands the cotton trade of the
world, and that the United States are
simply nowhere in the race. Mr.. Blaine
has gone to great deal of trouble to find
out why it is'that we lag so far behind, and
he has postulated a number of ingenious
suggestions, none of which, however,
really explain the situation. Thus he finds
that the English superiority arises from
their practice of going into partnership
with foreign firms; from their complex
banking system from their command Of
capital, and so forth. But Mr.. Biaine's
own figures contain the answer to the
question which perplexes him SO much.
They show that American cotton goods
cost double the price of the English manu-.
features. We need go no further. Sc
long as the English merchant can offer his
cotton goods at five cents yard, and SC
long as the American merchant asks ten
cents yard for his, the latter will toll
vainly in the rear of the former.
And SO long as Protection is the
policy of the United States, SO long will
it be impossible for the American man.
ufacturer to compete on anything like
| aouaI terms with his British rival Mr.