NEAT CATTLE. 257 



1. The minimum cLass remains nearly the same as in 1850. South Carolina 

 is now included iu this class, while Indiana has risen to 87 per cent. New 

 England and many other States in this class have varied each less than 5 per 

 cent. Vermont and New Hampshire still retain their isolated position, the 

 first remaining in the maximum class, and the second in the medium. Louisiana 

 has dropped from the maximum to the medium class. 



2. The medium class is now found to contain many of the States which, iu 

 1850, were in the maximum class. We find Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, 

 Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and New Hampshire, containing each 

 between 80 and 100 per cent. Of these States Indiana alone has made a gain, 

 rising from 12 to 87 per cent. 



3. The maximum class is mostly found Avest of the Mississippi river. Florida 

 and Vermont are the only States in this class east of it. Texas, California, 

 Oregon, Washington, Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, and neighboring districts 

 contain the great bulk of this class. 



The greatest diminution in this decade has been in South Carolina. That 

 State has lost 44 per cent., Louisiana has lost 35 per cent., and Mississippi 30. 

 The greatest increase has been in Texas, California, Minnesota, Indiana, and 

 Iowa. The supply of cattle in the southwest is far superior to that in the 

 middle or eastern portion of the country; and although the southern States are 

 better supplied than the northern States, their main reliance must be on Texas. 

 The value of this State to the so-called " Southern Confederacy" was not over- 

 estimated. 



DISTURBING CAUSES. 



Thus far we have considered the distribution of cattle without reference to 

 disturbing causes and deduced great general laws. It is not to be understood 

 that these laws are not to be modified. On the other hand, material modifica 

 tions do exist, but the great laws must first be ascertained before the modify 

 ing circumstances can be applied. I do not iu the present article propose to 

 discuss any of the disturbing forces ; yet a correct impression of the movement 

 of cattle cannot be conveyed, without alluding to one important modification. 



The cattle on the Pacific slope, as well as nearly all in Texas, ought to be 

 excluded in considering the excess or deficiency of individual States ; for those 

 west of the Rocky mountains are isolated from the United States proper, and 

 those in Texas are mostly wild, or at least not so domesticated as to be driven 

 east in great numbers. Therefore, in discussing the question of demand and 

 supply, or the movement of neat cattle, these sections should be omitted. 



This being done, the per cent, of cattle to the people will be reduced from 

 80 to 68. All those States, therefore, having more than 68 cattle to every 100 

 people can export, and it is from these States that deficiencies, wherever they 

 exist, can be supplied. The following tables are computed on the basis of 68 

 per cent, for local use, and show very clearly where the excesses and deficien- 

 cies exist, and what the movement of cattle must be to satisfy the demand. 



From these tables we find that in four of the New England States there is a 

 deficiency of 785,161 neat cattle, while in Vermont and New Hampshire there 

 is an excess of 190,485, leaving a net deficiency of 594,676 cattle in New 

 England — over half a million. 



In the middle States there is a net deficiency of 1,564,526 neat cattle — over 

 a million and a half. 



In Maryland there is a deficit of 212,985, Avhich, added to the abo"'"e, makes 

 a net deficit of 2,372,187 — over two and a quarter millions of neat cattle east of 

 the State of Ohio. This State has a net surplus of but 46,227 cattle, but could 

 probably spare from ten to fifteen per cent, of her normal requirement for the 

 eastern market, and depend on her western neighbors for a supply to take theii 

 place. 



23 A 



