The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1888-10-06
WHY, lNDEEL7

| WHY, IEDBEL7
The philosopher of the Ottawa Republi.
can Is coming TO realization of his want
Of general Information, and therefore de>
sires to be Informed why, If the only OBJ
stacle In the way Of the manufacturers Of
the United States competing with those of
Great Britain In the markets of the world
Is the duty on raw materials, our cotton
manufacturers cannot compete successful
ly with those of England Surely there Is
no duty on raw cotton, yet our manufac-
turers export only Sl400O00O year of
their products While Great Britain exports
S32l 100000 year
Well, yes, certainly that's question as
is n question. Our cotton spinners not only
pay no duty on the raw material but have
| II NJ their doors, while England must
transport II 5000 miles across the waters
with heavy Insurance charges. Then even
Blaine assures US in his report as Secretary
of State on the returns Of our foreign con,
suls that the British cotton manufacturers
In proportion to the amount of work done
by each hand, pay higher wages than are
paid by the New England mills. Further,
more, all the tariff organs are constantly
assuring us that common cotton goods, such
as shrtings, sheetings, prints. dc, are as
cheap In this country as in England, and
that such goods of American make that
wholesale in New York at cts, per yard
cannot be bought In Manchester, of British
make, for less money. Yet with all the
advantages In their favor to enable them
to compete on an even footing with the
British manufacturers, our cotton mills
make no exports and let England monopo'
lie the markets OF the world. 1t is true,
they set up that they are at one disadvan'
tage with England, being quite heavily
taxed on chemicals, merchants, &C., which
the English manufacturers have duty free
This disadvantage the Mills bill proposes
to remove, so that thenceforth, should that
bill pass, our cotton mills would be with
out such excuse.
Yet the cotton manufacturers of all New
England are up In arms against the Mills
bill and are pouring out their fat to de-
feat 1t, because that bill proposes the slight
reduction of from to per cent In the
present duties of from 40 to s. per cent. by
which they are protected, though the bill
fully compensates them for such reduc.
ton by taking off their tax on chemicals
and mordants
Now why is this? The milk in the
cocOanut is right here: The passage of
the Mills bill would leave our cotton man
ufacturers utterly without excuse for not
competing in foreign markets with Eng
land, and that is exactly what they don't
want. They are all leagued together In
one huge trust. Even the cotton mills In
the south, that pay their negro operatives
less than half the wages paid In New or
old England, are all owned by New Eng.
land men, and are tightly bound up In the
ssme trust. Now every one If these mills
has, for the last ten years. annually made
dividend of from 10 to % per cent. on its
stock, and that stock in many cases largely
watered. How was this done? The trust
limited production to the actual demand
of the home market, and with tariff of
from 40 to 50 per cent. to protect them
were able to keep out goods from abroad,
and therefore were able to fix prices at
such rate as always to insure them good
profits
That's why, MIR. Republican, our cotton
manufacturers, with all their advantages,
don't compete with England in the mark
cts of the world Now do you understand
it?