* 1 66 
RAMIE 
Under the title “ China Grass ", its past, present and future, Mr 
FRANK Bikdwood read a paper on Ramie at the Indian section of 
the Society of Arts (March loth, 1904) which was published in No. 
2679 of vol. Ill of the Journal of the Society of Arts. The paper 
contains a good deal of interesting matter. In dealing with the past 
history of the fibre he shows it was an article of tribute in China in 
B. C. 2205. He describes the manufacture of the plant by hand in 
China, and alleges that the cost of production there does not exceed 
^,12 a ton. With regard to supply he says. In Europe a considerable 
quantity is used every year but England only takes a small percen- 
tage of the whole. Japan is the principal purchaser. China to-day 
has a virtual monopoly and it is his opinion having regard to the 
market conditions which during the past few years have proved a 
very pointed lesson to manufacturers it would be mere madness 
to start an English business on large lines, that is a factory turning 
out many tons a clay, floated with the intention of competing all 
along the line with other fibres in general use and at the same time 
dependent lor its supply on the celestial merchant. Unless through 
some arrangement with the local Mandarins it had been able to 
contract ahead for its raw material. A small company working special 
lines competing with particular articles and treating a thousand tons 
or so of raw material every year could complete its juncture with- 
out materially affecting prices and there are good profits to be so 
earned. But if anyone is thinking of investing capital let him see that 
the output of the business is sufficiently small to remove all fear of 
enhanced price of raw material and sufficiently large to meet a 
swamping dump from other rivals. It is essential that some other 
source of supply should be found so that by competition market 
prices should be regulated. ” 
The difficulties of degumming, spinning, dyeing and bleaching lie 
considers are things of the past, and “commercial success is un- 
doubtedly within the grasp of the China grass manufacturer. He 
has had to wade through mud to grasp it. The cultivator was the 
first cause of failure, he saw that the price of fibre was high, the 
market was declared to be certain and he rushed into produce. 
Failure was a foregone conclusion tor Chinese methods and Chinese 
labour were neglected elements of success .’ ’ riiis is hardly a 
satisfactory explanation of the failure on the part of the cultivator, 
who could not possibly use Chinese labour in India or the Straits at 
the cost of Chinese labour in China, nor would he make “good 
profits” at £\2 the ton, with a maximum out turn oi 10 lbs. a day 
per man. 
It is hard also to see the special value of Chinese methods, when 
the China grass of commerce contains as he says only three-fourths 
of fibre and one-fourth of gum. 
The action of the manufacturer is also condemned, “ what the 
Chinaman could do he could do and so sans process, sans experience, 
sans machinery and sans market, he poured out his wealth by the 
