San Marcos free press. [volume] (San Marcos, Tex.) 1877-1892, 1882-11-30
comparative Cost Of Cotton :Manufac.
Chicago Times.

.ss' tariff commission is that protection
= necessary here because wages are
h;cber here than in Europe. The no.
hie American operative must be pro-
t na against the "pauper labor" of
Europe, and especially againat that of
Great Britain. There is in the pre-.
sontation of this argument the usual
urotectionist looseness of thought and
, ritotement, for we are not told distinct
" whether high duties are wanted to
make wages higher, or simply because
wages are higher. There is obviously
an important difference here, but the
nrotecttionist never condescends to no.
lice it, or to state just what he means.
There is another thing which he in
sists in overlooking, and that is the
difference in efficiency, if any exists,
between American and European la
bor. If the American operative, from
any cause, produces 20 per cent. more
than the English operative, he earns
that much more, and is entitled to
that much more pay. In that case, if
anv one needs protection, it is the
English operative and not the Ameri-
can operative. This the protectionist
ignores. He asserts wildly that the
American workman is paid twice as
much as the English workman, three
times as much as the French work
man, and so on, but he can not be in
duced to admit that, if all this is so,
it may be because the American
workman produces more.
In striking contrast to all this vague
and inconsistent babble about wages
is the exact and business-ike state
ment of the comparative cost of Eng
lish and American cotton manufac-
lures embodied by Consul Shaw, of
Manchester, in a recent report to the
state department. The statement
was prepared by the late Mr.. James
Thornby, of Manchester, who visited
this country in 1879 to study the tex
tile manufactures of the United
States. Mr.. Thornby states that he
was kindly permitted by American
manufacturers to make such extracts
from their books of account as he re-
ouired to enable him to make an &C
curate comparison of the cost of man
ufacturing in America and England.
He first gives table showing the
wages paid for weaving piece of So
yards at four different places in Eng
land, and the same number of places
in the United States. From this ia
BILE it appears that the average wages
per piece in this country was 2O.7O
cents, while in England it was 1854
cents, or 80 per cent. more for the
same quantity of cloth. In wages
paid per pound weight of cloth the
difference was less, but it was still from
4 to 8 per cent in favor of the Amer
lean manufacturer. So far as regards
wages, therefore, it is the English
man, and not the American, who re-
quires protection. Of course it is not
to be inferred that the American op-
erative receives lower wages than the
English operative. Mr.. Thornby
makes no comparison of daily or
yearly earnings. To do so would not
be at all to the purpose. The ques-
ton is simply whether the American
Or the English manufacturer pays the
most wages for producing a given
quantity of cloth of certain kind.
Since the American manufacturer
pays less, he must, so far as cost OF
labor is concerned, be able to COM
pete on equal terms with the English
manufacturer in the worlds markets,
even though he may pay each oper-
tive twice as much per day or year as
the Englishman pays.
Mr.. Thornby proceeds to show that
while the American enjoys a marked
advantage in respect to the wages ele-
ment in the cost of production, he la
bors under more than counterbalanc-
ing disadvantages in other respects.
He finds that the average cost of
manufacturing pound or clotn is
about IA per cent. greater in this
country than in England. In sum-
ming up, Mr.. Thornby said: "Your
readers will gather from the figures
given in the foregoing table of costs,
that, in the matter of wages, America
is as cheap as England; from what l
have said previously they will be able
to see also that still further economies
may easily be made in this item by
reducing the cost in the spinning de-
partment. 1t will be noticed that the
disadvantages suffered by American
cotton manufacturers arise chiefly
from the weight of their taxation, the
DEAFNESS of their coal, and the great
Il