The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-01-31


wealth more generally distributed, and the
character of the people more elevated Jhan
in any other part of the country.
The most convincing Illustration OF the
utter failure of protection to give stability
and prosperity TO manufacturing industries
is that AFFORDED in the cotton and silk in
dustries OF England and France. France
protected her cotton, while England pro
tected her silk. The silk industry in En-
gland up TO 1896 was protected by an abso-
lutte prohibition on imports. The industry.
in all her borders The manufactures at
Spitalfelds the center Of the industry,
were in a deplOrable condition.
said Mr. Leaf. London merchant
appeared TO attend Spitalfields during the
Prohioidon. Up TO the period O., oil - -s OF
periods Of very severe distress in the win
ter and subscriptions were raised in the
city for the purpose of relieving the dis
tress; for the purpose OF establishing soup
committees and giving soup TO the poor
when 1t was proposed TO remove Ihe pro pro,
hioiuon on the importation OF silks the
manufacturers and operatives OF Spitai-
fields protested that they would be ruined;
that they were already barely able TO eX-
list, and that IL the products of the French
manufactures were permitted to come in
they would be crushed. What was the
result?
From the very moment the prohibition
was removed the silk industry Of England
sprang up with leaps and bounds. Not
only was there a restoration of prosperity
in Spital6elds permanent as in other
sections OF the country, but. the silk manu-
IactureS increased IN Manchester Mac
cleSteld. COngleton, Coventry, Glasgow
and Palisey. From a peT1shing condition IL
not only ceased TO be a mendicant. begging
for aims but became n healthy and vigor-
Gus aid in the restoration of general pros
perity. The exports of silk manufactures
1897 TO $4,000 in 1875. and from f236ll3 TO
1887, l9S 10 all the world
France had pursued a liberal policy TO-
ward the manufacturers Of silk. While
silk goods We're admitted at duties from
Is 70 10 per cent, cotton goods were eN-
cluded. yet so sound and healthy did the
silk industry become that the manufact-
urers of that country were able 10 export
four-hfths of their entire output
In comparing the cotton industries OF
England with those of France, Mr.. Bow
ring said:
You may take. for instance, two of the
most extensive manufactures. the cotton
trade of England. and compare II with the
cotton trade OF France. 1t is known that
the cotton trade of England Is the least
protected Of our trades; that il was In
fact a prosecuted trade in its origin; that
taxation was levied upon cotton goods in
the interest Of the wooden trade: that cot
ton manufacturers have been throughout
the advocates OF free trade, yet the de-
velOpment OF that trade in England is per-
iectly uneNampled- IN France the cotton
trade is the most protected OF trades; u
was protected from its origin; 1t is only
within a few years that the finest numbers
Of cotton twist have been admitted into
France there is an absolute prohibition
on all articles OF cotton manufacture eN-
cept the very high numbers Of cotton
twist, which are used for making lace.
The cotton trade has made very small
progress in France compared with the cot
| ton trade in England. The state Of the
cotton laborers is frequently one of very
great suffering The number of bankrupts
among the cotton manufacturers in France
has been great, and when the home mar
| ket is glutted there is no means of relief
by going TO the foreign markets inasmuch
as the price at which they produce, the
fictitious price created by the protective
system. is much higher than the prices of
I ma wi WI hoy
cons quence ia that, as a means OF relief.
the government has been in the habit Of
which is another taxtion levied upon the
French people, they paying In the first
/ case, much greater sum than they need
pay Tor the cotton garments they wear;
and secondly. paying the cost of the in
creased price upon the article which France
exports, i'm order TO enable her TO get rid
OF her supertuous production.
Protection OVerdOne.
Mr. Chairman. / could cite Illustration
| after illustration TO demonstrate the truth
/ Of the proposition I have stated, that no
| industry viii be firmly established upon
| sound base by excessive protection.
! We are told that industries have been es-
! tablished and are being established, and
| have prospered and fOurished, under the
| protective system, as If that was an an
/ swer 10 the whole question. Most assured
| ~ they have grown and prOspered. but
! how? Not by legitimate production; not by
] the superior management of their owners:
| not by giving to the consumer a cheaper
! and better article than he could obtain
| elsewhere. but by eXacting from him, with
| ala Of the government, an eXOrbtant price
| and an undue proportion OF the profits of
] his toll. What industry is there that will
| not flourish when clothed with legal au-
| thor1ty and power TO tax the energies and
| productions of sixty millions and more OF
| people in possession of the richest country
upon the face of the earth.
| They have grown rich and powerful:
grown until many Of them, with closed
| doors and idle machinery, are still able
| to demand and receive their distributive
| share of the unjust tributes which the gov
eminent protects them In levying upon
the people without limit and without mer-
| cy- They have prospered because they have
been turned loose to prey upon the richest
country in the world and they have
proved upOn its resources until its vitality
| has been exhausted. Is IL not apparent
| that the excessive growth of manufactures
| in this country, under the stimulus OF the
protective policy, has been at the expense
| Of our natural advantages and resources
| and has reacted. with disastrous effects
| upon the general property which is so
| essential to the peace and happiness of
| all the people?
| Who can scan the record Of the past
| few years without discerning the fact that
prosperity has been swiftly followed by
| greater depression. No lasting recovery
| can take place so long as we continue TO
| maintain a policy that restricts trade, inn
pedes commerce. limits production and
40 greater mistake was ever made than
| TO suppose that additional means OF en-
/ ployment are created by protecting branch
| IS Of industry that could not otherwise
! be carried on. The whole effect of legis-
| lative interference in this direction is that
| of diminishing the wealth of the country
| by causing less prOftab bic TO take the place
/ of more profitable emplOyments. Every eff
fort 10 exclude an importation is a direct
injury to the domestic market; II reduces
both production and consumption. and thus
robs labor of employment The magnitude
| Of imports no less than that of exports
| indicates the degree Of prosperity that pre-
1 walls throughout the country.
It Is as profitable to trade with one be-
yOnd the seas as with one in an adjoining
state and every prohibition laid to exclude
the foreign products is loss TO individual
and national wealth and therefore an in
fury to the domestic markets If we viii
| but adjust our rates to admit imports our
exports will take care of themselves When
Great Britain removed her determinations
/ against French wines her exports to France
| increased from fi75,SS4 in 1870 10 f2,37S149
| in 1910
| commerce Of Manchester, in his tes-
timony before the home committee. said
that the effect Of restrictive duties had
| been to stop the natural course Of trade
and to divert n into other channels: that
| this was remarkably eNemplihed in the de-
crease of cotton manufactures TO some
in particular whose corn and timber they
| had refused TO take. Continuing. he said :
i find that the exports OF cotton manu-
features in Russia in 1920 were f7O2. 125
but i'm 1893 they had fallen of TO $50 1871
Germany and Prussia in 1870 were the best
| exports to those countries in 1920 We're
| e. 969. 1913; in 1888 they had fallen Off 10
fSs7 296. Our exports to the United Neither
| lands in 1920 were 1919 6Sl; and in 1898 they