196 Early History of American Auctions 



(g) It was argued that the foreign agent auction system hurt 

 the country because it tended to cause the export of money 

 which would otherwise be expended inside our boundaries. An 

 estimate of the profits of foreign agents in 1825 was $2,000,000, 

 which, it was pointed out, would employ 500 principal merchants, 

 with their 1,000 clerks and assistants, together with their families, 

 and require stores, warehouses and dwellings, fully 1,000 houses 

 with rentals of $250,000, and would percolate to advantage 

 through mechanics, dependent branches of business, farmers, 

 etc.^i 



(h) Auction sales disturbed the regularity and dependability 

 of commerce and industry. Dvmiping by foreign manufacturers 

 had that very purpose. That steadiness of market which is 

 required to yield a reasonable profit and regular employment 

 was adversely afifected.^'*- Prices fluctuated widely and speculative 

 purchases were fostered.^'*^ 



(i) A charge against auctions, reiterated without end. was 

 that they injected into use a poorer quality of goods than the 

 people were wont to buy by private treaty and than they thought 

 they were buying. It was a period when, the world over, people 

 began to wear cheaper clothes introduced and made possible by 

 the Industrial Revolution, particularly cotton goods. Auctions 

 probably did facilitate this change of custom in costume by break- 

 ing the rigid trade channels and giving the manufacturer a 

 competing outlet for his new products. But the enemies of the 

 auction system charged the manufacturers and auctioneers with 

 fraudulent activities. It was alleged that manufacturers pre- 

 pared "on purpose for auctions, goods defective in every 

 respect — in length, width, quality, color, and pattern, which no 

 reputable house would venture to import and to offer at private 

 sale — and which would be dear at any price"""*; that they used 

 auctions to force the sale of refuse and damaged goods^*^ ; and 



"■ Niles, 27: 274, 289. This Mercantilistic doctrine is immemorial; for 

 a similar complaint in 1704 see Goodrich, Picture, 45. 



'■^Niles, 27: 273; 34: 259. 



''' Niles, 34 : 258, 259, 350. 



"^Niles, 34: 258; 31: 24, 86; 18: 419-420. "Remarks upon the Auction 

 System," 18-21. Some of these charges smack strongly of protectionism 

 and connote a newspaper propaganda. 



'" Xiles, 27 : 289. 



