Vol. XIII.

No. 155.

indeed, they are anywhere equalled. These advantages and the prestige of the past ought to gain for her at least a proportional share of the patronage growing out of the nation's progress.

Second, notwithstanding the extent and perfection of our manufactures, there were imported into this country last year nearly forty million dollars' worth of cotton goods. If Fall River could have enjoyed the privilege of producing all these all these goods her wage earners would have been increased by more than 22,000. It is not to be expected that domestic goods will ever take the place of all these imports, or that one city could reap all the benefit if they should, but certainly some portion of that forty millions should be kept on this side the water and Fall River should get her share. Unless our tariff is weakened this will be the result.

Third, our exports of cotton manufactures are increasing. In 1892 they were 13 million dollars and in 1901 they were 20 millions-though they were three and four millions greater in 1899 and 1900 respectively. Our exportation is trifling to what it should be. Dr. Wm. P. Wilson of Philadelphia puts the case forcibly when he says: "During the year 1899 manufactures of cotton valued at $500,658,412 were shipped over the boundaries of the countries of manufacture. Of this large and profitable export trade, the United States, which raises nine-tenths of the world's cotton, secured only $23,566,914, or about $1,500,000 less than the trade secured by the little re

public of Switzerland, which does not raise one pound of cotton or possess one seaport, and has but about 3,000,000 people." In 1899 the exports of cotton manufactures from the United States were $23,000,000, Switzerland, $25,000,000; France, $32,000,000; Germany, $53,000,000 and Great and Great Britain, $328,000,000. Japan increased her exports from nearly $8,000,000 in 1897 to more than $16,000,000 in 1899. These figures show that the United States is not getting its share of the export trade and that there ought to be and probably will be a considerable increase, in which, of course, Fall River should share.

Fourth, the world's consumption of cotton is increasing. The production of raw cotton in this country increased from two billion pounds in 1877 to five billions in 1901. As this was about 9-10ths of the world's supply, it follows that there is an enormous gain in consumption. In 1877 nearly 69 per cent of our product was exported, and despite the vast development of our manufac tures since then, the export last year was nearly 63 per cent. If we could, as I think we should, manufacture 50 per cent of all we produce, there would be an increase in the output of our mills which should enable Fall River, for some years at least, to continue to grow.

FACTS THAT SUGGEST CAUTION.

But Northern mills now have to reckon with a formidable and increasing domestic competition in the

Southern States, and the whole country has to reckon with keener European competition in neutral markets and with a fast growing competition in Japan and China. In 1892 Southern mills consumed but 686,080 bales of cotton and in 1901 they consumed 1,620,931 bales. In other words, ten years ago the Southern mills consumed 23 per cent of the cotton grown and retained in this country and now they consume 45 per cent of it.

During the last ten years the numbers of spindles in the world's cotton mills increased about as follows: Great Britain from 43 millions to 45 millions; Continental Europe from 24 millions to 32 millions; United States from 14 millions to 18 millions; India from 23 millions to 4 millions; Japan from one quarter of a million to 1 millions and China from none to more than half a million.

Some of our manufacturers, especially in the South, are building great hopes on the Chinese market. A little insight of this trade may be instructive.

Prior to 1896 China imported cotton goods to the value of a little more than $50,000,000 a year. In 1896 the value rose to $79,000,000 and in 1899 to $103,000,000.

The chief classes of these imports were plain shirtings, 11 millions; white goods, 8 millions; T cloths, 2 millions; American drills, 4 millions; English sheetings, 2 millions, and American sheetings, 9 millions; Turkey red cottons, 1 million; last

ings, plain and figured, 3 millions; cotton flannel, 1 million; cotton yarn, English 1 million, Indian 36 million, Japanese 16 million.

The most significant of these imports is cotton yarn, aggregating 53 millions, or more than one half of the total imports of cottons, and being nearly three times as great in 1899 as in 1890. This shows how rapidly China was developing cotton weaving before the Boxer outbreak.

But it was also spinning. In January, 1901 spindles were running in Central China to the number of 378,052, and the number projected was 525,252. The three foreign owned mills in Shanghai, running only 34,000 spindles and for only 11 weeks, were able to divide profits of 3 to 7 per cent. The yarn was better than that produced in either Japan or Bombay and the labor cost was 25 per cent lower than for the same output in Lancashire, or fully 35 per cent less than in Fall River.

In view of these facts I do not share John Barrett's roseate opinion that we can within the next thirty years increase our exports to China from $40,000,000 to $300,000,000; or, should we be able to do this during a developing period, it could not be long maintained. On the contrary we should have to look out for our home market.

Our exports of cotton goods go to nearly all countries, but in only three countries do they amount to one million dollars or more those countries being a group classed as Other Asia and Oceanica, $1,217,107; British

China $9,844,565. In 1899 we sent to our near neighbor, Mexico, only $833,531 worth, while Europe sent there $3,774,933 worth. We sent to our near neighbor, British North America, $2,759,164, while Europe sent there $2,833,728 worth. We sent to all South America $2,713,967, while Europe sent there $43,487,846 worth. Nothing is plainer than that we have neglected the South American trade. To gain it will involve a long effort and a large sacrifice of profit, and we shall need the aid of direct lines of steamers and reciprocal trade agreements.

SOUTHERN COMPETITION.

In competing with other states and countries the cotton manufacturers of Massachusetts are hampered by a higher cost of production, found chiefly in the items of fuel and labor. Many of the Southern mills get coal for $1.50 to $2.50 a ton less than it costs in Fall River. In spinning and

plain weaving, labor in the Southern mills has become nearly or quite as efficient as in the mills of the North, but the wages average from 5 to 20 per cent lower. In Massachusetts the hours of labor of women in factories are limited to 10 a day and 58 a week, but 11 hours is the lawful limit in South Carolina and Georgia and there is no limit in Alabama and Florida, where the mills are often run 12 hours a day, or 72 hours a week. The employment in factories of children under 14 years of age is forbidden in Massachusetts, but there is no age limit in North Caro

Mississippi and Texas. It was recently learned that fully one-third of the cotton mill operatives in a certain town of Georgia are under 14 years of age. In the Southern cotton mills generally children begin work at the age of 12, but in some instances they begin at 9, 8, and even 7 years. There is a tendency to raise the age limit but the improvement is very slow and there is small likelihood that the hours of labor in Southern mills will be reduced for many years. The U. S. Industrial Commission recommended to all the states the adoption of substantially the same limitations as to hours and child labor as prevail in Massachusetts, but the Southern members dissented, saying, "The inalienable right of private contract should be allowed to both laborer and employer, and the unwise limiting of the hours of work by law we believe to be fraught with danger."

So long as the cotton manufacture in the South was but a small industry, the hard labor conditions only slightly affected the North, but now that they manufacture nearly one-half of all the cotton goods grown and retained in the country, they can take trade away from Fall River at any time when the demand for goods slackens. They have already taken it away from other Massachusetts towns, and in several instances the manufacturers in those towns have been compelled to build mills in the South for the production of yarns and printcloths.