The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1888-10-10
A Question Easily Answered.

An Illinois reader of THE SENTINEL sends
US the following from a republican paper
and asks us what we have to say about it I:
While Mr.. MILLS was enlghtening an audi
ence of democrats at New Haven, Conn.,. a few
nights ago to the advantages which would
be realized by American manufacturers as a re-
suit of making raw material free, he was asked
by one of his listeners why it was that with
free cotton in abundance OUR muslin and print
manufacturers were unable 20 compete Nth En-
gland. This was a pertinent question, and was
asked by permission, but the only answer the
seeker after information received was vulgar
remark.
The question is likely to remain unanswered,
unless the reply OF MILLS is satisfactory to the
thinking men, as doubtless it is to the black
guards of the country. The democratic con-
tention is that free wool will so stimulate do
nestle manufacture and so cheaper produc-
ton that our wooden goods viii flood the mar
kets OF the world, and while giving employ
ment to tens of thousands OF idle men and
women secure for them better wages and more
OF the necessaries of life at a cheaper cost. This
is what Mr.. CLEVELAND says in effect, and
what the advocates of free raw materials, from
Chairman MILLS down, profess to believe but
is it true? Cotton is like WOOL both as regards
rawness and its utility as a manufacturing fab
ric. 1t is raised by the cheapest labor known
10 the United States, and if cheap raw material
would produce the wonderful results which
are Claimed lOr Tree wool, why IS IL tlat we DO
not supply the world with cotton goods?
The condition of our cotton industry is
splendid argument for free raw materials.
We do not supply the world with cotton
goods, it is true, for reason which will be
explained furtheron. But our cotton manu-
facturers, getting their principal raw ma
terial on the same terms as their foreign
competitors, export Sl5,000,0O0 worth of
cotton goods annually, while our wooden
manufacturers, who are taxed on their
principal raw material, while their foreign
rivals get it untaxed, export only half a
million dollars worth of wooden goods
In other words, we have free cotton and
taxed wool, and ,0e erpor. thirty times as
much cotton goods as tce do 'ooolen goods.
Furthermore, we import NINETY times as
much wooden goods as we export, while of
cotton goods we only import tvice as much
as we export.
The imports and exports of wooden and
cotton goods, for 1887 were, in exact
figures:
Wooden 9O2,7ls 5{o,3l2
Cotton 2S,9l0353 1929 $40
We should think the monopoly organs,
in view of the above facts, would have
nothing to say about the relative condi-
ton of the cotton industry with free raw
material, and the wooden industry with
taxed raw material.
Our cotton manufacturers, however, are
at a disadvantage when compared with
those of England in two very important
respects. In the first place their plants
buildings, machinery, etc.-cost them a
good deal more by reason of the high tariff
on lumber, iron, steel and other articles
that enter into them. They are also
heavily taxed on dye-stuffs, chemicals and
many other commodities which they use
in the processes of manufacture.
But the chief disadvantage under which
they labor as compared with England is
that the latter encourages foreign trade,