The Owosso times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1897-1926, 1910-11-04
MISUNDERSTANDING MR..
FORDNEY'S RECORD

gresham Fordney for his views on
the new tariff law. He quotes Gov
ernor Marshall, of Indiana, in the be-
ginning of the editorial in which the
governor said:
"The tariff is the root of all our
government ills" etc. Governor Mar
shall is a Democrat and a free trader,
and is therefore hardly an unpre-
JUDGED authority.
This writer declares that the growth
of the cotton industry Is on the wane
in the northeastern states that is TO
say, that the cotton manufacturers OF
the New England states are curtail
ing the production of cotton and NOV
ing their institutions to the south near
the point of production of raw cot
ton. This statement is not correct.
There has been healthy increase in
the production of cotton in the north
eastern states where many of the
mills are operated by water power,
which is cheap fuel. There are
more spindles in the northeastern
states than ever before, 100000 in
number. Mr.. Fordney stated that
fifteen years ago there were no cot
ton mills in the south. That state
ment is correct; there are more than
500 cotton mills now operating in the
southern states. The total number of
spindles at work in the south, in
round numbers is 100000, making
total of 26,O0O000 spindles in the
cotton mills of the United States.
Practically all the cotton mills in the
south have been established since the
Dingley law was enacted in 1897.
There is no duty on raw cotton, but
in the face of the fact that there are
100000 spindles operating in cot
ton mills in the United States, cotton
raisers shipped abroad last year raw
cotton, the major portion of which
went to Europe, was there converted
into finished products, and about $780,
100000 worth of finished fabrics,
made by European cheap labor, was
shipped back to the United States
and sold to the very men who raised
the raw cotton.
Before the establishment of the
Dingley tariff law, which gave pro-
lection to cotton manufacturers, cot
ton growers of the southern states
received for their raw cotton the
measly sum of five cents per pound;
ten million bales of cotton brought to
the southern cotton growers, at that
time, $300,O0O,000 The competition
for American grown cotton between
the manufacturers of the United
States and those in Europe and Japan
has advanced the price to the south
ern grower, so that today ten million
bales of cotton brings to those same
growers $o00,O0O,000 or Is cents per
pound, and this too without any ma
terial advance in price for any kind
or grade of cotton fabrics to the con-
sumers in this country. In the Payne
tariff law some adjustments of the
rates of duty on imported cotton were
increases. also some de-
creases. The reductions in rates of
duty were generally on the cheaper
grades of cotton. and the increases on,
higher grades, largely on such arti
cles as lace curtains and the finest and
highest priced goods made from cot
ton. 1t seems that the writer would
be pleased to have the conditions that
prevailed from 90 to 81 brought back
to the southern cotton growers.
The writer mentioned the wooden
schedule and quotes Senator Bever-
idge in a speech the senator made
in Indiana last winter, and says that
the schedule is AZ years old. and that
if it ever was right, it has long since !
served its purpose. Is the writer try
ing to pull the wool over the voters
eyes and get them to forget the Will
son bill, when wool was on the free
list during the life of that bill. from
"a to 81, which put the price of
cents per pound in Saginaw markets
and mutton sheep at from IS cents
to $3.50 per head? If so, his memory
Is evidently exceedingly short or
and needs half-soling No
Saginaw farmers memory needs half
so!ing on this subject His memory
runs at least to the year 1896. He
states that western wool is sold nine
cents per pound this year below last
years prices. Grant this statement to
be correct. Last years prices were
abnormally high, 80 cents per pound
and at the extremely low price which
he mentions for today, the western
wool grower gets Fl cents per pound,
according to his statement. Why not
that price with seven cent
wool in Michigan, and from three to
five cents per pound for western wool
in 1896, which was under a Demo-
cratic free trade bill,--free trade on
wool at least.
1t is stated that Mr.. Fordney voted |
for an increased duty on structural |
steel. What are the facts? The tar
if law of 1883 placed a duty of SIS
per net ton on structural steel. The |
law. the Act of 1890, re-
duced this duty to $lS per net ton.
The Wilson German Democratic law
reduced the duty to $l2 per net ton.
The Dingley law, the Act of 1897, re-
duced the duty to ten dollars per net
ton; while the duty on structural steel
in the present Payne tariff law was di-
vided, and there are two rates, which
are as follows: If valued at less than
sl8 per ton the duty is So per net ton;
4 valued at more than $l8 per ton, the
duty is So per ton; or an average of
81 per net ton-the lowest rate ever
liked in any tariff law since the Repub-
lean party came into power in 1861.
Why does the writer make such mis-