The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1897-04-07
doctrine of free raw material. Its ap-

plication is unjust, and If continued
will bring ruin and disaster. Just
why the cloth out of which my shirt
is made should be prote cted five cents
a yard and the shirt itself protected 4O
per cent. ad valorem, while the raw
material out of which the cloth is
woven is not protected at all, and the
plan considered fair and logical, is be,
yond my comprehension. If my shirt
is to be protected by customs duty, |
say the cotton out of which it is made
should receive dequate protection also
and if this is impossible withhold pro
lection from both.
This and this alone, Can insure a
reciprocity between those who made
the shirts and those who made the cot
ton. 1t would be equal, honest and
fair. This is proposition which l
emphatically endorse, and one which
believe would benefit the people I
represent.
It is said that free raw material
cheapens the manufactured article.
As business proposition this should
be true, but it does not necessarily fol-
low that the consumer receives either
all or part of this benefit. The manu-
facturer obtains all he can for his pro.
ducts, and in these days OF pools and
combines prices are, in many cases,
established by boards of directors in
stead of legitimate competition. In
other words, free raw materials do not
of themselves insure lower price for
the manufactured product to the con
sumer, but only to the manufacturer.
The doctrine of free raw material
compsls the producers of such raw
material to sell in competition with
the whole world. and permits them to
purchase in a restricted market only.
They are forced to dispose of their pro
ducts at a competitive price, and com.
PEELED to purchase the manufactured
article at fixed or arbitrary figure.
Such methods are neither legitimate
nor fair, and bring about unequal ex.
changes. In fact the producer of the
raw material is plundered for the bene-
fit of the manufacturer and consumer.
The manufacturer gets cheaper raw
material with which to conjure trade,
the consumer gets only the benefits
forced from the manufacturer, while
the farmer waits in vain for the ap'
plication of this theory to work him a
profit. As an illustration of this theory
take the wool grower, the man whose
money crop is wool. His product was
protected by q customs duty until the
passage of the Wilson bill in 1893:
Since then he has produced and sold
what is called raw material. How
has he feared under this condition?
He sells his product now for less than
half what he received prior to 1888.
The same amount of wool which
brought him $4,000 in 1898 brings
him about S., 900 now, making a less
of fully $4,000. This loss can be pro-
perly charged to the application OF the
doctrine of free raw material, and
the question presents itself as to how
much and in what manner is this
wool grower benefited. How much
of this S., 900 loss is returned through
other channels9 I venture to say
that his net loss would exceed nine.
tenths of the whole. His lawyer fees,
doctor bills and taxes are no less, and
quite likely to be more. The new
national mortgage of three hundred
and sixty-two millions of peace bonds
include his property with! the balance
of the country. He is compelled to
stand his share of billion dollar Con-
press and other expenses, lust as when
his products brought twice as much.
In fact he may scan his bills ever so
closely and he will find in its last
analysis that all his compensating
credits come from other unfortunates
who produce other kinds of raw mate
rial. It is one class of labor compel.
ing against another class OF labor,
while the manufacturer and money
loaner thrives and fattens on their
disaster.
Mr.. Speaker, it is claimed that the
manufacturer, by reason of his invest
ment in buildings, machinery, etc,
should be encouraged in his enter
prise, and to a certain extent insured
against loss. Just why this class
should be selected for Government fa-
vor I am unable to conceive. The
census shows that there are more farm
ers than manufacturers and operatives,
with nearly three times as much In
vested in lands, buildings. etc. Why
is the investment of one class more
sacred than that of another2 Why
should one be favored by legislation
and the other neglected. A glance at
the real facts will disclose that the
planter runs far more risk in his &C.
cupation than the manufacturer.
There is no other business compell-
ed to take as many chances as that OF
agriculture. There is no other busi-
ness that can adapt itself less to cir.
cumstances than agriculture. When
prices advance the manufacturer can
put on more help and run on double
time. On the other hana, when
prices decline, he can discharge parG
of his help, lessen the hours OF labor
or close down entirely, aud thus guard
against Losses. With the planter he
must decide at the season of planting
how many acres he will cultivate,
and whether prices 60 up or down,
he can neither increase nor decrease
his acreage, or in any manner protect
himself against coming less or take
advantage of Increased prices. The
manufacturer turns his capital many
times during the year, and usually
with profit each time.
The planter on the contrary, can
use his capital but once, and must
take his profit or loss upon a single
cast. We NAV examine the entire