Evening journal., 1893-02-04
NEWSPAPER OPINION.
The Cotton Argument.

Louisville Courier-Journai
When the paid advocates Of protec
tion throw out a suggestion, 10 is quickly
taken up and echoed all along the line.
The prevailing argument just now is to
cite the prosperity of the cotton manu-
facturng industry as Justification of
the Mckinley bill. and n reason against
it's repeal. On this the big and little
organs of protection are ringing the
changes.
AS is customary with that class Of rea-
soners. Il is assumed that the prosperity
Of this industry is due to the Mckinley
bill. It is also taken for granted that
legislation which gives great profits to
one branch of industry Is not only de-
fensible but laudable. Neither of these
assumptions has any foundation in fact
or sound policy.
The cotton manufacturing business
was profitable before the Mckinley bill
wGs passed lt was the boast of Pro
tectionists that cotton goods were sold
for less than the duty. 10 was also true
that millions of dollars of cotton goods
were exported and sold abroad I'm COM
petition with the products of the cheap
labor OF other countries. 1t was. there.
fore apparent that the business required
no further protection. On the other
band, Il was evident that many articles
had a much higher rate Of duty than
was necessary even for the purpose OF
checking imports IForeign goods can
not be brought here and sold at a profit
ina competition with goods that can be
prohtably exported
The Mckinley bin made some changes
In rates on manufactures of cotton, but
these changes, as a whole, can have had
nothing TO do with the prosperity which
followed, unless they put up prices or in
creased sales by excluding competition,
or both. Protectionists claim that the
bill reduced prices. but they insist that
protection Is beneficial by giving the
home manufacturer the benefit Of the
home market Let us see. then, to what
extent the Mckinley bin has given cot
ton manufacturers the home market, or,
in other works, has checked imports OF
this particular kind of goods
In the fiscal year 1890. the last before
the passage OF the Mckinley bill, the IN
ports of manufactures of cotton were OF
the value of S20. 81 3,O2S7o. In the fiscal
wear 1891. during three-fourths of which
the bill was In operation. the imports
amounted TO &29, li2, 330.22, show.
/ ing very small decrease
! Ia the fiscal year 1892 the imports
amounted TO $2s. .323, 79i, or not quite a
million dollars less Ia value than I'm 1890
a very trifing difference when compared
with the immense consumption Of cotton
goods in the United States. Even thi.
was due IN parts TO reductions ia price
for IN the ease Of colored cotton cloth.
the importations liner. ased nearly
million aud half yards ia 1892 over
/ 1891 This olords no basis for account
ing for the increased prosperity of IN,
cotton manufactures. 10 could bs
agreed with greater plasusibility thai
this prosperity was due TO better
foreign demand. for exports Of coitou
goods increased ia 1891 over 1899 bl
about three and half million dollars
The exports IN 1892 were smaller than
those Of 1891, but only by some $500,
GOO
The truth is the business Of manufaciur-
ing cotton in many Of It's branches is in.
dependent Of the tariff. not reqniring
any protection. In sOtne cases the tarih