San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1890-05-19

a result of this law the increased facill-
ties for production of wool would cause
a lowering of price, while at the same
time the grower would be receiving aver
age profits
Let us now examine the assumption
that with raw materials at the same price
which other nations pay we could sue
Cessfullv compete with them i'll the mar.
kets of the world Evidently there is but
one way in which we could do this, and
that is 10y selling the same article for the
same or less price. The cost OF raw
materials is not the only item that enters
into the cost Of production of a finished
commodity. There is the amount paid
as wages, the interest and risk on capital
sunk in the plant. its deterioration in
value and the cost of administration, all
of which must he accounted in determine
ing the cost of production. The mate
rialS which in their raw state represent
the value of dollar become worth many
times that amount when they have I'M
dergone a number of processes of manu-
facture. and this increase in value is due
to the factors Of production just cnumer-
ated.
According to The London Artisan a
dollars worth of lead when made into
printing type is worth $50. An amount
of iron of like value when made into or
namental work is worth SIS; into sciS-
sors, $40; into penknife bla, ), $500.
and into sword handles, $3.50. Even
hemp which does not undergo very eX-
tensivc processes of manufacture, and
which when finished is but a rough prod
uCt, is worth four times its value as
raw material. The same fact is further
illustrated in the case of the raw mate
rials of our various textile and meChani-
cal industries.
Of the elements in the cost of prOduC.
ton, not the least is labor. The average
daily wages of the employees, including
men, women and children, in the manu-
facture of wooden goods in the United
States are 81 40, and in Great Britain IS
cents: in metals and metallic goods in
the United States, 50; IN th. IA U"Nn.
$135, and in Belgium, Gf cents: ia car
petings in the United States, &l.1i, and
in Great Britain, $l2O.
Tie arguments given in reference to
our manufacturing indu>rir, have been
negative, t"nIlnE /" SHOW lhat they
would receive Il" apPreclahIr advantages
from having raw materials lr''' mere
are, however, poSltlT" arguments tend
ing to show that advantages accrue to
the manufacturing industries from a pol
lcy which secures 1aIr measure Oh pros
perity I" the producers Oh raw materials
The American manufacturer depends lor
a market for ms wares mostly upon those
| engaged In other American INDUSTRIES
Anything, then. when contributes 10 lhe
| prosperity Of these benefits hn through
| the increasing demand for his PRODUCES.
a prosperous condition among the farm
| erS, the wool growers, tn" miners, the
wage earnrrs Who are engaged in the
| production of raw materials reflects it
self in the stimulus given to the business
| of the nl"NUfactUrcr who supplies the
| former with finished commodities.
1t j. a false ambition. as well as a
| wrong policy. which would seek to ex-
| tend our foreign markets, and bv so doing
| iniure the efficient demand of the home
| market. Thnuuustiuu is fairly DrCscr, ed
| are lust these: Wccan ret raw materials
| no cheaper than England and other man
| ur,cturi,,, nations yVI.r tba,- I,ra
been TRANSFORMED into finished produc-