quantities of cloth were purchased; cutting was done 

 in multiple layers with tailor's shears. Since many 

 seamstresses were needed, the garments were farmed 

 out to the girls in their homes. The manufacture of 

 garments in quantity meant that the profit on each 

 garment was larger than a tailor could make on a 

 single custom-made item. The appeal of increased 

 profits influenced many to enter the new industry 

 and, due to the ensuing competition, the retail cost of 

 each garment was lowered. Just as the new businesses 

 were getting underway, the Panic of 1837 ruined most 

 of them. But the lower cost and the convenience of 

 ready-made clothing had left its mark. Not only was 

 the garment-manufacturing business re-established 

 soon after the Panic had subsided, but by 1841 the 

 value of clothing sold at wholesale in New York was 

 estimated at $2,500,000 and by 1850— a year before 

 sewing machines were manufactured in any quan- 

 tity — there were 4,278 clothing manufacturing estab- 

 lishments in the United States. Beside New York City, 

 Cincinnati was also one of the important ready-made 

 clothing centers. In 1850 the value of its products 

 amounted to 14,427,500 and in 1860 to $6,381,190. 

 Boston was another important center with a ready- 

 made clothing production of $4,567,749 in 1860. 

 Philadelphia, Baltimore, Louisville, and St. Louis all 

 had a large wholesale clothing trade by 1860. Here was 

 the ready market for a practical sewing machine. 73 

 Clothing establishments grew and began to have 

 agencies in small towns and the sewing work was 

 distributed throughout the countryside. The new, 

 competing sewing-machine companies were willing to 

 deliver a machine for a small sum and to allow the 

 buyer to pay a dollar or two a month until the full 

 amount of the sale was paid. This was an extension 

 of the hire-purchase plan (buying on credit) initiated 

 by Clark of the Singer Company. The home seam- 

 stresses were eager to buy, for they were able to pro- 

 duce more piecework with a sewing machine and 

 therefore earn more money. An example of the 

 effect that the sewing machine had on the stitching 

 time required was interestingly established through 

 a series of experiments conducted by the Wheeler 

 and Wilson company. Four hand sewers and four 

 sewing-machine operators were used to provide the 



average figures in this comparative time study, the 

 results of which were published in 1861 ; 7 * 



NUMBER OF STITCHES PER MINUTE 



r. , , r By Hand By Machine 



Patent leather, fine 



stitching 7 1 75 



Binding hats 33 374 



Stitching vamped shoes. 10 210 



Stitching fine linen 23 640 



Stitching fine silk 30 550 



TIME FOR GARMENTS STITCHED 



By Hand By Mm hint 



Frock coats 16 hrs. 35 min. 2 his. 38 min. 



Satin vests 7 hrs. 19 min. 1 hr. 14 min. 



Summer pants. . . 2 hrs. 50 min. hr. 38 min. 



Calico dress 6 hrs. 37 min. hr. 57 min. 



Plain apron 1 hr. 26 min. hr. 9 min. 



Gentlemen's 



shirts 14 hrs. 26 min. 1 hr. 16 min. 



The factory manufacturer, with the sewing work 

 done at the factory, was also developing. In 1860, 

 Oliver F. Winchester, a shirt manufacturer of New 

 Haven, Connecticut, stated that his factory turned out 

 800 dozen shirts per week, using 400 sewing machines 

 and operators to do the work of 2,000 hand sewers. 

 The price for hand sewing was then $3 per week, 

 which made labor costs $6000 per week. The 400 

 machine operators received $4 per week, making the 

 labor cost $ 1 600 per week. Allowing $ 1 50 as the cost of 

 each machine, the sewing machines more than paid 

 for themselves in less than 14 weeks, increased the 

 operators pay by $1 a week, and lowered the retail 

 cost of the item. 75 The greatest savings of time, 

 which was as much as fifty percent, was in the manu- 

 facture of light goods — such items as shirts, aprons, 

 and calico dresses. The Commissioner of Patents 

 weighed the monetary effect that this or any invention 

 had on the economy against the monetary gain 

 received by the patentee. When he found that the 

 patentee had not been fairly compensated, he had the 

 authority to grant a seven-year extension to the 

 patent. 76 



73 Eighth Census, I860, Manufactures, Clothing (United States 

 Census Office, published Government Printing Office: Wash- 

 ington, D.C., 1865). 



'■< Eighty Years of Progress of the United Stales (New York, 

 1861), vol. 2, pp. 413^29. 



75 George Gifford, "Argument of [George] Gifford in Favor 

 ..I the I [owe Application for Extension of Patent" (New York: 

 United States Patent Office, 1860). 



"s Op. cit. (footnote 34). 



58 



