PROM WOOD AND COAL. 



in this market, and compare it with a cord of red-heart hickotf 

 The comparative value of the former is 100, and of the latter 8 1 

 We then have the followingstatement. As 100: 600:: 81 :486 

 Four dollars and eighty-six cents being the comparative value 

 of a cord of red-heart hickory, and the difference between 

 the price of this wood and its* comparative value thus ascer- 

 tained, shows how much dearer or cheaper it is than the wood 

 with which it has been compared. We will suppose the pric< 

 of red-heart hickory to be ">.7.5 and thai of chesnut white oak 

 to be 5 dollars. Then 81 : 575 : : 86 : ti l o. is the value of the lattei 

 whicli being sold at 5 dollars, is cheaper by one dollar and ten 

 cents, than the red-heart hickory. If we tike the mean ofth< 

 comparative numbers for the eleven different species of oaks, 

 which is 69, and compare them at 5 dollars, with shell-hark 

 hickory at 6 dollars, 100 : 600 : : 69 : 414, is the average value OJ 

 those oaks, and at the prices specified, the hickory is the cheapest 

 by nearly one dollar. 



A mere examination of the comparative numbers, \\ ill shorn 

 that a cord of white birch is 52 pr. ct. less in value than a cord of 

 shell-hark hickory, and the difference p<r cent- may be calcu- 

 lated from the comparative numbers between au\ two ai ticl< a 

 sold at the same price. 



We will now extend the comparison to some of tin coals: and 

 take for this purpose one cord of shell-hark hickory, at i. dol- 

 lars, and determine the comparative value of one ton of Lehigh 

 Coal. As 100: 600 :: 99 : 594, which shows them to l>. 

 of nearly the same value, supposing each article to he con- 

 sumed under the same circumstances; but as this is not tin 

 ease, and as tin's objection has been frequently stated to me by 

 those who have confounded two distinct subjects, a momentary 

 digression will be excused, to show the futility and irrelevancy 

 of this objection. It is admitted that there may be greater 

 disparity between the manner of consuming different kinds ot 

 fuel, than actually exists in their comparative value as usually 

 sold; but tlii-; difference does not enhance or depress the value 

 of the different articles, provided it is practicable to consunu 

 them in the same manner, which, with very fevi exception 



