Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1888-02-04

several others Some Of these mills did sue
coed in later days, because they did not keep
up with the times in machinery, in good taste
lacked good management and perhaps had
not sufficiently capacity deftiy to mix ma
terials. Failures have been in all branches
of business. When there is brisk compe
tifion, If is the survival Of the fittest-"
You say you will not seek the aid of sta
tistics TO refuse my statements. You had
better let statistics alone in this
case. In 1860 the entire consnmp-
ton of wool in the United States was
only Sc 600 900 pounds. In 1856, over 400
000, 900 pounds. This sbo- better than your
operations or mine the development of the
wooden industry prior to and since 1850
You do not dispute that the masses are clothed
better and cheaper than ever before but you
say it is because of the .'in- proved appllan-
cesT now in use. The cost of clothing. like
other manufactures, 10 made up from ma
terials entering into the garment and the la
Dor Of making up. The prices paid today for
making overcoats, undereoats- vests and
trousers are higher than the prices paid in
lsGO. 1t is the development of the WOODEN
industry 10 the United States that has re-
your share in this Development. Why.
make statements that all manufacturers and
dealers know TO be disIngenuous and unwar-
ranted if not ridiculous?
You make the wild statement that every 10
cents worth of corn starch bought by the
laborer costs him Is IL cents, because of III
tariff. Most people suppose corn to be an
American production and that il can be turned
into starch here as cheaply to transport the
raw corn across the Atlantic and reimport it
in the form of starch. Then again, Mr.
Blake. when | was Collector, farina. or
starch, as an article of food was free.
Whether il Il SO now or not makes no differ
ence. 4 tariff on corn starch, high or low.
could not affect the price here for any length
Of time.
agree with you that the $40, 600, 600 or
s45 DOC, 900 of imported WOODEN goods ought
TO be made in this country, the largest part
at least. The tariff on wooden goods was re-
duced in 1888 The erroneous classification
OF worsted goods, which all parties seem now
ready to rectify, increased this reduction in
two instances. | will give the results of this
reduction of duty. The importations of
wooden yarns during the yeN ending June
30, 1888, before the reduction took effect,
amounted in value TO s453 1863. After the
chadge in 1884, importatioRs were 81 .04s,-
IA in 1886, importations of wooden yarns
were 81 2sj. l76. Importations of worsted
goods in 1888 amounted to 1868 .69s in 1884
81 ,420, 033; in 1855, So 100 1886: in 1886,
So ,295 ,43G In these two items, WOODEN
yarns and worsted goods, the increase of
duties paid in the three years subsequent to
the reduction of the tariff over the duties paid
in the three years preceding the change is
81 .j65 ,427 1t.can be seen from these ex-
amples how reduction of the tariff on WOODEN
goods reduces the surplus.
Now, it depends upon the standpoint you
occupy. how you look upon the proposition OF
free wool If you believe in this principle
of protection to American industries in the
adjustment of the tariff, then it becomes a
matter of equity as between the manufac-
turers and the wool growers. At the present
low price of wool the duty on wool is
fraction more than half the duty on
wooden goods In 1860 the production of wool
in this country was about 60, 900 900 pounds
in 1861, 100, 900, 900 pounds; it rose to $780,
O00, 900 pounds in 1869, and then fell off to
10000, 900 in 1872. After 1872 the prodnc-
ton of wool increased each year, reaching
800 900, 900 900 pounds in 1884 For ten
years previous to 1884, inclusive, this country
produced four-fifths of its entire consumption
of wool. Certainly wool growing is an Amer
lean industry in as large proportion as WOO
manufacturing, aud as much entitled to dis
terminating protection. Setting aside the
equity of the wool growers claim, am will
ing to leave the discussion of the expediency
to the manufacturers themselves. You in
stance three of your old schoolmates in Scot
land who have been equally successful in
'free-trade Brton making goods for the mar
kets of the world" Nobody is surprised that
British manufacturers have prospered. Why
shouldn't they with labor paid less than half
you have paid and making goods for the
markets of the world ?" Had You received
no protection, the goods made by your school
mates would have had more chance to have
driven your own goods ont of the home mar
ket you were seeking to supply. ! doubt if
your success would have developed in the
country of your adoption, had it not been for
the protection you received against the man
ufactnres of the schoolmates and others you
left when you emigrated But how is it about
operatives here and in Great Britain, the
operatives of your old schoolmates and the
operatives you have employe Do those in
Great Britain have the comfortable homes,
the good living, the savings laid up for old
age, the opportunities offered for improve
ment that your operatives enjoy Have they
the same consuming power to make market
for the productions of other industries be-
sides your own These are questions you may
answer at your leisure. The American pro-
tective system covers the whole people an
must be judged by its effect on the general
prosperity.