The Washington herald., 1913-05-16
Cotton Manufactures.

,tion-much claptrap and buncomb ar,
talked about American as compared
with foreign wages In the tariff hear
ings and the press these discussions
seldom go beyond a comparison o
money wages per man. 1t does no
seem 10 occur to many of the disput
ants that high money wages are no
inconsistent with low labor cost. TIL,
real question is not how much la,
borer is paid per day, but what tn,
labor cost per unit of product is
These general observations are applica
bic in particular to cotton manufac
! lures.
Much has been made of the rise Of
the cotton industry in Japan, it being
claimed that Americans cannot com,
pete with cheap Oriental labor. 1t is
of course, true that the daily wages
of the Japanese laborcr are only a few
cents day, that he works twelve hours
day, and that his standard of living
is far below the American working
man. But in some cases in Japan the
labor cost per unit OF product is
greater than in the United States. This
is particularly true of weaving, as
shown by the report of the tariff board
Japanese weavers," the board said
tend only one or two looms. and the
loweT, output per weaver under exist
ing conditions makes the amount paid
! the weaver per yard of cloth about Sc
per cent of the amount paid in this
country where plain looms are used
while compared with the use of au-
tomato looms, the amount paid the
4 weaver per yard of cloth is greater
than in this country"
In considering what the tariff should
be on cotton cloth it is necessary to
distinguish between plain and fancy
goods. The former can be produced
on automatic looms and at a small la
Dor cost per unit OF product; the latter
requires more individual attention, and,
therefore, are produced at a greater
labor cost To the producer of the
! former tariff is merely a conven-
fence; to the producer of the latter a
tariff Is necessity
The tariff board showed that the cost
of producing cotton yarns in the Unit
ed States is greater than in England
But as 10 weaving, it says: in the
case OF large variety of plain goods,
the labor cost OF turning yarn into
cloth in the United States is no greater,
and in some cases it is lower, than in
England" Automatic looms are more
common in this country than abroad.
In 1911 there were only about 5000 of
them in England, whereas there were
approximately 100000 in the United
States. One weaver commonly tends
twenty or more of these looms 1t is
also customary for a weaver to tend
more ordinary looms running on plain
goods in this country than in England
The strength of the American man.
ufacturer of plain goods is the weak
ness of the manufacturer of fancy
goods and of certain grades of yarn.
As the amount of individual attention
required in the production of a fabric
increases the disadvantage of the
American producer increases. In the
making of fancy fabrics our immigrant
lahorer is no match for the art and
skill of the foreigner. In framing the
Underwood bill this distinction between
plain and fancy goods has not been
given the attention it deserves. If it
becomes a law without change it will
force many mills now engaged in the
production of fancy goods to turn their
machinery as far as possible to the pro-
duction OF plain goods, and the strug-
gle OF many New England mill to-
ward higher phases of the textile art
will be arrested if not DESTROYED. There
are already indications that there will
be corrections made in the Underwood
Schedule in the Senate. More in
! formation IS being produced, and it
seems that the Democrats are willing to
admit that the Ways and Means Com
mirtee bill can be improved upon. The
situation illustrates the old principle
that man Cor committee) never goes
so far as when he does not know
whittier he is going.