The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1897-04-07
d bv reason of increased demand.

| The profits OF the manufacturer are
Ienhanced just as much by free raw
material as by high duty on the fin
lished product. But, Mr.. Speaker, I
have seen enough and heard enough
in the committee room and elsewhere
to know that no duty will be imposed
on raw cotton, because it would in
crease at least the price of long staple
and thereby lessen the profits of the
New England mills. The mills using
this cotton are situated entirely in
New England. The people producing
this cotton are in the South. This is
quite sufficient to outweigh argument
and justice.
| COTTON PLANTER PLUNDERED.
l will make but one more compari-
son, and that between wheat and cot
ton, the two great money crops of
this country. In 1895 the wheat crop
amounted to 460, 267, ,416 bushels, while
the imports that year was 1,43S. 299
bushels.
The amount of cotton produced in
1896 was 5,036, 964, 400 pounds, The
imports of cotton during the came
year was 49, ,332, ,022 pounds. 1t will
be seen that the per cent of imports in
wheat was only about one.third of the
per cent of imports in cotton. The
Mckinley bill of 1890 gave wheat a
protection OF 25 cents per bushel, and
the Wilson bill of 1893 20 per cent ad
valorem. It is hardly necessary for
me to say that cotton is and has been
on the free list. While the importa-
ton of wheat does not seem to in
crease, the imports of cotton are max.
ing rapid strides.
While the bulk of wheat importa-
ton comes from Canada and British
Columbia, no less than fifteen differ
ent countries are sending raw cotton
| to our shores. The imports of raw
cotton have increased from 1924, 531
pounds in 1887 to IS, $50, $40 pounds
in 1896. 1t is a mistake to assume that
all the cotton imported is long staple.
Out of the imports of 1896 but 43, 574,.
769 pounds came from Egypt, leaving
nearly twelve million pounds to be
sent from other sections. It is safe to
infer that all of this is not long staple
cotton. Just how much is short staple
I have been unable to ascertain. Be
the amount what it will, it is danger
signal that should not remain unno.
ticed.
SOUTH ASKS JUSTICE ONLY. Z
Mr.. Speaker, the people of the South
are entitled to this consideration.
They have the right to demand equal
and exact justice with other sections
at the hands of Congress. It is unfair,
unwise and Un-American to compel
them to bear mora than their share of
the burdens of government. This inn
portation of raw cotton strikes at the
very vitals of the one great industry
of the South It is standing menace
to the cotton planter which but few
seem to realize. Fifty five million
pounds of cotton is not far from 120,-
900 bales. This represents the product
of nearly. If not quite, 10000 average
farms. It also represents the income
of mora than 100000 of the people of
my section. If the manufacturers of
the East and the farmers of the West
are to be protected against the pauper
labor of other countries, have not the
people of the South right to demand
similar safeguarda Is it fair to ask
the people OF the South to submit to
certain conditions which the East and
the West refuse to endure2 I have
made no distinction in regard to the
different kinds of cotton, since they
are all affected by these imports. If
by reason of this duty long staple cot
ton should be excluded, much of the
land now used in producing short sta
pie would be used in producing the
long staple. This would lessen the
crop of short staple and increase its
price. In this indirect manner the
grower of short staple would be bene-
fitted. 1t is assumed by some that these
duties on wheat, corn, oats, barley
and other products of the North and
West does not increase their price.
If that be true, why are these duties
imposed2 Are such duties placed up.
on the statute books to deceive2 Are
they intended as bribes to the North.
ern and Western farmers from the
cunning manufacturers of New Eng
land,
Mr.. Speaker, if the duties upon agri-
cultural products of the North and
West should be eliminated from this
bill it would be voted down by this
House. I am led to believe that the
disasters that overlook the wool grow.
ers because of the Wilson bill, which
made his product free raw material,
together with the promise of protec-
tive duty by the Republican party,
was one of the potent factors which
compassed the defeat of the Demo.
cratic party in the late election.
The wool grower of the West is nsIt.
urally with us on the paramount issue
and the time is not far distant, when
he will repudiate the miserable 'see-
saw" sophistry that this bill discloses,
of legislating higher prices by a tariff,
and forcing lower prices with single
gold standard ;he will then unite with
the other producers of raw material in
driving you from place and power. If
the agricultural products of the North
and West are to be favored by nation
al legislation, in the name of justice
and fear dealing, let the agricultural
products of the South receive similar
consideration. Lat the statute books
of our country disclose a record of
equality and reciprocity to all sections
and for all the people. The South is
worthy of this action at your hands.
It stands today as the most available
portion of this great nation, where
capital and DEVELOPMENT can be made