The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-08-20

1 on the contrary, the system of depressed
futures forced it lower.
These indisputable facts are mentioned
| to show the deception of the claim OF
overproduction and to emphasize the as
sertion that the cotton producer is i'm
povershed, and his products virtually con-
fiscated by the privilege exercised by the
New York cotton exchange of gambling
in our cotton markets. | shall therefore
tax your attention with some of the de-
tails of this nefarious system of public
plumber, in order to enlist your assist
ance in its suppression.
The price paid for cotton fabrics is not
fairly divided between the producer AMI
manufacturer, according to the relative
value of the labor and material required
for the finished article. AT present the
labor and material furnished by the cotton
producer is of greater value than that of
the manufacturer. and under fair DIS
trbution he should receive the larger
share of the money derived from the SAFE
of the manufactured article But SUCH Is
not the case; the entire receipts are SO
nearly enjoyed by the manufacturer tnat
the division is outrageous.
|. From the early methods oil weaving by
hand down to the modern manufacture or
fabrics by machinery, the value OF the
labor required TO manufacture cotton goods
has rapidly decreased.
In 1850 cotton yarns cost eight times as
, much as the raw material The improve
ment in machinery was so great IN the
next hundred years that in 1860 in cotton
fabric costing liz cents, the raw cotton
cost 6 rs cents. In 1890, in fabric cost,
ing II cents the cost of the raw material
was ~ cents, or more than twice as mucn
as the manufacturing cost
The decrease in the value OF factory "a,
Dor is further shown in the fact that III
1926 and 1927, inclusive, the average
amount of cotton cloths produced per
hand was 975 pounds, while in 1883 ana
1890 the averagv product per hand was
600 pounds. ,,o
II is therefore evident that an equitable
division of the value OF the manulac'u1eu
article would give the producer more IMAM
twice as much as the manufacturer, put
such is not the case; the producer sets
virtually a trifing share or the enormous
profit made out of his material.
Look for a moment at the astounding
difference between the price pala PR
pound for cotton goods and the amounl
received by the producer per pound lot
the material that makes the goods
A calico dress pattern OF ten yaras
waiphs mound and costs from Az 10 oo
cents per pound, while the gross receipt
of the farmer who raised that grace Oh
cotton last year was 3h Genus per pvuhu
Cheap bleached cotton goods sen ZOE
about s1 so per pound, but the cotton OF
which Il is made brought only Genus
The light grades of lawn that sell al 10
cents ner ward cost about $3.50 per ponna,
the pound of cotton that made u proush'
only cents per pound. 81,
The better grades Of organdy that sell
for 40 cents per yard amount 70 apou.
sl2 80 per pound, but the pound OF cotton
that made adj il brought the producer only
Ga cents. ,s. -, ,,rchas-
These figures can be verihed ny purenas
inc and weighing cotton goods in any
store and comparing the. cost OF a pounu
Of goods with the price OF pound OF CO...
tom There can be no question about the
fact that the labor required to produce
pound OF cotton is more thar Twice as w.
n. In the face of that fact we see that