Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-01-05

LNyc8 10 XO0f C0UL8 = R<s
AZ this MONT on motion Of Mr. bayne, .no
committee decided to have AZ ALL r;ths
prepared by the witnesses ana ILL., us.~I AZ -,
ont reading. the authors being ss.l "
make brief oral statements IN IN. Iii.
Several representatives OF the lute-mniis
made arguments and presented non'o' '"''
favoring free raw .jute. ...d Il, sun-
Other memorials were presenn'sa~ H., sba
port OF tho same duties asksd .snc;at;on
f!ax-growers and the Spinners ass s,.;a
Mr.. Charles Z. Pearce. OF Of L1" ..
read statement showing tnat .n ~ In IN
mills in the country can manuiac,u ~.
00xl 600 wards of cotton-bagglng. wnle .n i1
total amount required by 1,Ooo,oov ohie
crop OF cotton Is but 45,0o0,% sat T
leaving q surplus Of $1,000, ooo yhus' .r;,a
material used in this manufacture ~ ,'snor
BILE for nothing else except was.e-pspv,
stock, The witness made q co% 1meyi.
of the cost If Calcutta ana hI ;n,e
can bagging. showing that WIN }u'o
butts free duty of ct Ieass
cents per yard upon the manuIac..u.iS;u
product must be laid in order TO nam Iaih
the industry in the country. II the pres
ent duty of IS ton on Jute-Du.ts
tanned then the duty on the inanulac'an ra
product must be % cents per ,sluip .,oe
OF these combinations OF rates h,I. ioaioo
HsKtU 10 Dt lHStlItu III tLt thl
Mr.. Mcmillan questioned Mr.. Pearce as
to the cause of the extraordinary Use ia
price of bagging from ~ cents 10 100, ;e
12h cents in 1883. He asked the WITNESS IL
there wasn't trust Of the bagging maun-
facturers to bring about this rise MI;
Pearce said there never had been a trusto
the bagging- manufacturers. nor u conioI-
nation of them TO raise the priceol paeE'n,s.
Mr.. Peace explained at length that IN the
spring of 1893 seven out OF prooauy
TWENTY-FIVE manufacturers of the country
cornered the product, which resulted III
the rise of prices indicated. Inc MAUI
facturers were badly scared by the prooa-
blity of the passage of the Mills Dlii. -
A warm colloquv ensued between Mr. DC.
Millin and the witness. in the course OF
which the former asked the witness III ne
justified the organization OF the trust the
corner. or the ph lanthropic institution
brought about by the fear OF the passage
of the Mills bill. ..,
II saw" responded Mr.. Pearce,, that
when you undertake primarily to destroy
my business am justified secondarly IN
protecting myself, and I'll do IL every
time"
:" But the organization didn't release it's
grip upon the people after the danger Oh
the passage of the Mills bill bad passed"
Il can saw TO You or Mr.. McMillin there
ISL [ u 40
try who doesn't regret the necessity that
compelled the organization You refer TO"
Mr.. Breckenridge: do you know OF any
manufacturer returning an increased price
Of bagging!" -,
II 10 not. They didn't have it,"
The Chairman: You say you didn't
pnt that S2,O0O.O00 Of increased price IN
your pocket. Why didn't you?"
I'VE didn't get it,"
"Who did get it?"
Il don't know; we didn't
To further questions by Mr.. Mckinley.
NJ. Pearce said the Mills bill, if it had
passed, would have destroyed every, bag
ging-manufactory in the country and pro.
badly have bankrupted seven eighths of
the manufacturers. 1t would have
wiped out from six to eight and half
millions Of capital. and the organizs-
ton that cornered the product of 1888
was due solely to the belief that the. Mills
bill was hostile legislation to invested CAPT
tai. To Mr. Breckenridge Mr. Pearce said
that before the introduction of the Mills
bill correspondence was had among the
baeging- manufacturers TO restrict the out
put of the mills to about the amount de-
manded by the American market.