The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-05-13

In todays Post appears q liberal ab-
stract OF an address delivered by Mr.. Ed
win Chamberlain of San Antonio before
the bankers association at Fort Worth
last Wednesday Mr. Chamberlain repre-
sents great life insurance company and
has been instrumental in securing the
investment OF many thousands OF dollars
in Texas despite the injquities. the iujus-
tice and demagogy he assumes tV see
in the laws and legislative policy of the
state. Now let us argue bit with Mr.
Chamberlain. perhaps to our mutual profit.
but the argument must be brief.
Mr. Chamberlain enumeNtss our re-
sossess, in agricultural, mineral live stock
and factory products with engaging elo-
quenee, while submitting the general prop
osition that our laws and legislation have
laid upon them all the blight OF non de
yelopment. MFR. Chamberlain must revise
both his statistics and his facts II he is to
escape the verdict OF the impartial critic
that he has started out With the precon-
ceived determination to arraIgn Texas be-
fore the bar OF public opinion as a savage
and remorseless enemy to foreign capital
knocking at Its doors for admission and
to Industrial development by corporate do
nestle capital.
Georgia and the Carolinas are cited 10
show that legislation, and not self-re-
lance employing home capital, has re-
suited in the cotton factory. Does Mr..
Chamberlain believe that foreign and not
local money has built the cotton mills in
the States named? II So he is wrong In
his facts and has been careless student
of the economic history OF his country.
Foreign capital invested in the cotton mills
of the New England States has dis
Outraged the erection of cotton mills In
the South for in them it saw rival that
would eventually close up the Eastern
plants. Men remember the arguments
Mr., Chamberlain to our surprise, that
money was unsafe In the South. that
skilled labor could not be induced to come
South or could not be created In the
| South. The railroads, too were allied
with the New Englandcr and foreign cap
iual. largely drawing Its interests from
! their operation at tremendous profits
Joined them in their fight to perpetuate
the system of hauling the raw cotton from
the Southern helds to the distant points
OF manufacture and back again in the fn-
ished product. This went on until the
Carolinas and other Southern States, see
ing nothing but ruin under the system,
ceased to rely upon invitations to foreign
capital to develop their native resources
and set about developing them with the
means at their own hands. Then came
the cotton factory. Not before Texas has
gone through the same experience, In
not one OF our communities where money
has been recently subscribed for the cree
I ton Of the cotton factory, we dare say,
has there been dollar OF foreign capital
enlisted. We read the names of pro-
iectors, directors and stockholders. They
are all men OF the home community.
The interest Mr.. Chamberlain represents
does not Invest in Industrial bonds nor IN
bank stocks, we believe They are spec
ulatlve and uncertain and therefore too
preearious an investment for a trust fund,
so say the able hnanelers who sit in
JUDGMENT upon the class OF securities in
which they lodge 1t. Why therefore should
Mr. Chamberlain assume that Texas is
going to- the demnition bow-wows because
Texas does not say to the foreigner come
here. select your own factory site aud pro-
coed TO the manufacture OF cotton at
profit ranging all the way. according 10
accepted authority from 10 to rs per
cent on money Invested tax free2 Georgia
and the carolinas do not exempt cotton
factories from taxation. Suppose. how
ever, they did, would such exemption not
be manifestly unjust and besides ridicu.
ious bit Of government bounty to an in
dustry admittedly so profitable that ii can
not afford to become rcendicant for
State rharity? There Is not one syllable
in the laws of Texas nor one menace 81.