254 
guided in these requisites, the productions of both classes meet in the 
same market,and should command a discrimination as to quality and 
price, which, it is complained, they do not get. On the contrary, the 
conclusion is that dirty cotton is most profitable, because it brings more 
money per acre than that which is sold by the careful planter. 
This seems to be an evil which time and circumstances must cure; 
and it is therefore an injudicious conclusion, that it would be better to 
adopt the example of the planter who sells dirty cotton. It cannot be 
that the merchant or manufacturer will long fail to discriminate between 
the good and the bad, when they are marked by such distinctive quali-’ 
ties as clean and dirty. This, then, may be looked upon as a temporary 
evil. And we may hope that its cure will necessarily work a correspond- 
ing change in the careless class of planters to which we have alluded; 
for if they have to pay for hauling dirt, for which they get no price, and 
which decreases the value and price of their cotton, their losses will 
teach them to separate the former from the latter. It is assuming too 
much to suppose that both the merchant and the manufacturer will con- 
tinue insensible to the advantages which arise from a choice between 
goodand bad. The evilcomplained of may last for atime; but detection 
and change are certain. : 
We cannot doubt for a moment that the spirit of improvement in ag- 
riculture actuates the planters of the South as well as the farmers of the 
North; and that the fact that better seed will produce better products, is 
greatly appreciated and acted upon everywhere. But if the merchant 
and manufacturer fail to appreciate the value of a good article of pro- 
duce, as compared with an inferior one, it will go very far to discourage 
the effort to excel. 
All the information which I have been enabled to gather on this sub- 
ject leads to the conclusion that there is no deterioration in the cotton 
staple, but that efforts to improve its cultivation and quality are, in 
some degree, thwarted by a want of proper discrimination in the mar- 
' ket prices between the qualities offered for sale. 
AUSTRALIAN WOOLS. 
In the monthly report of the Department of Agriculture for July, 
1872, mention was made of the reception and deposit in the museum of 
the Department of thirty-three prize fleeces of Australian wools, for- 
warded by the Agricultural Society of New South Wales, with a view, 
as stated by the secretary, Mr. Joubert, of enabling buyers of wool and 
breeders of sheep in the United States to see what was produced in 
Australia, and of bringing about such an exchange 6éf blood in sheep 
as might be of mutual benefit to the two countries. These wools were 
duly placed on exhibition in the museum, where they now remain; 
samples were likewise sent to a number of wool-growers’ associations in 
the western and northern States for inspection, and for the purpose of 
eliciting the opinions of those presumed to be competent judges in the 
matter. As the Department, however, had no means of establishing 
such a system of exchange of animals as was suggested, it could only 
refer the proposition to individuals and associations for their action. 
Among those to whom reference was thus made was Hon. Henry 8S. 
Randall, president of the National Wool-Growers’ Association, whose 
opinion was freely expressed in a letter to the Department, which was 
