AMJ FOR AM hi;; 27 



failure, then there is the crop made up for it. Supposing 

 it was at the option of the American planters to carry 

 the above scheme into practice, what could it effect ? It 

 could not raise the cotton, in the aggregate, one cent in 

 price. All that it could do would be to equalize the price 

 of one year with the other, raising up the minimum and 

 reducing the maximum. And the weavers or manufac- 

 turers should encourage the scheme, because it would 

 have the effect of rendering the price of cotton piece 

 goods on their side equal also ; and, instead of their hav- 

 ing to hold over the piece goods for a favorable market, at 

 a great loss, by the accumulation of interest and warehouse 

 expense, &c., the cotton planters would take all that addi- 

 tional trouble on themselves. 



Therefore, let it be allowed that the American cotton 

 planter be the sole arbitrator of the market, such a 

 scheme would be detrimental to his own prospects. But, 

 is the cotton planter so far ignorant as to suppose that the 

 same quantity of cotton would be consumed at twelve 

 cents per pound as there would be at six cents per pound. 

 Raise the price of cotton to the uniform price of twelve 

 cents and it would be to contract its consumption. It 

 may be supposed cotton must be had at any price : that 

 is a great mistake ; flax and hemp, silk, wool, &c., would 

 take its place- ; cotton shirting and sheeting, cotton vests, 

 cotton (drawers, cotton night-caps, cotton socks, would be 

 all superseded by the use of woolen, linen, and silken 

 goods. The grazier with his sheep, the man who rears 

 the silk-worm, the farmer who sows his flax and his hemp, 

 who are all, in a manner, cotton planters, would be re- 

 cipients of the benefits. China and India would export 

 more silk ; Australia, Great Britain, France, more wool ; 



