Bisbee daily review. [volume] (Bisbee, Ariz.) 1901-1971, 1910-03-03
platform was the failure to reduce


woolens."
Woolens are important. too partic-
ularly TO the poor. Under the head
of woolens come blankets. mems.
children's and women's underwear;
cloth from which is made mems and
women's suits. hosiery. and a great
many other textile products which
are neoessaries of life.
Now what about the cotton sched-
ule? Was the tariff on cottons re-
vised on the basis OF equalization
of the difference in the cost of pro
Iduction at home and abroad?" How
could It have been when congress
was not permitted to know what the
cost of production at home and
abroad was?
Aldrich and Payne did not apply
the principle of equalization OF the
difference in cost of production at
home and abroad, or make the least
pretense OF doing so. Members OF
congress voted on the various sched-
ules-were forced TO do It by the
Republican leaders-without having
the slightest idea OF what the for
eign cost OF production of the ar
ticles affected really was.
Yet the figures as to the cost of
production were attainable. Here
they are as to cotton production:
The census of 1905 shows that the
wage of the average employe in
the cotton manufacturing industry
in the United States is 1904 a year
s25.33 . month, $685. week. az
cents a day. This astonishingly low
average is due to the large number
of children and women, and foreign
ers. on the payrolls.
In England (from whence comes
the greatest competition to our man
ufacturers of cotton) the annual
wage of the average employe is
S233.2S: monthly wage. $19.45, week
ly wage. $44s; daily wage. "A cents
These figures are from the official
report OF the British Board OF Trade
based on the. census of 1906. The
cost of living is so much cheaper in
Great Britain that according to for
mer United States Commissioner of
Labor Carroll d. Wright. the Brit
ish cotton mill employe can pur-
chase more OF the necessaries of life
with his daily wage of "A cents than
the American worker can with his
81 cents.
The average per cent of duty fix
ed by the OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES law
is in excess OF 40 per cent. An at
tempt TO justify this amount of pro-
lection by the actual difference in
the cost Of production at home and
abroad would be ridiculous. Grant
ing that foreign goods have no cost
whatever. the rates in the present
tariff law on cotton goods would
still be excessive.
But the Republican platform also
provided for "a reasonable profit tc
American industries" This brings
lup the query: Must the American
cotton manufacturers have the pres
ent excessive protection on cotton
goods TO meet competition?
The amount Of profit enjoyed b.
the beneficiaries oethe cotton sched
ule is the best answer to this ques
ton.
Here are a few of a multitude o!
similar Illustrations which could be
given:
The Bates Manufacturing Co. OF
Lewiston. Maine. capitalized at ST..
100000. had net earnings in 1907
amounting TO 41S7 per cent and de.
clared a dividend of 35 per cent
The Pepperell Manufacturing Co.
OF Biddeford. Maine, has declared
dividends averaging "a per cent for
the last nine years; in 1905 its divi-
dends were AZ per cent, and in
1906. SO per cent
The Algonquin Printing Co, organ
lied in 1898 and capitalized for
$500 goo, had in 1907 emped surplus
Of S75O.OOO, During the last nine
years its net earnings haze aggre-
the entire amount OF the capital IN
vested.