436 



MONTHLY JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE. 



For these reasons, your Committee disap- 

 prove of any scheme which would have a ten- 

 dency to materially abridge the quantity of Cot- 

 ion produced. Indeed, they trust that it will 

 continue to increase, and carrj- its blessings as 

 it were on the wings of the wind, until every 

 inhabitant shall fully realize tlie benefit of cot- 

 ton fabrics for all the purposes to which wool, 

 flax, silk and hemp, have been heretofore de- 

 voted. 



WHITEMARSH B. SEABROOK, 

 JOHN BKLTON O'NEALL. 



Col. M'Willie's absence from South-Carolina, 

 and Mr. M"DufRe's ill health, prevented the 

 Committee from enjoying the benefit of their 

 services and counsel. Mr. Alston concurs in 

 the entire report except a single sentence : and 

 his reasons for that dissent are appended. 



I concur in the opinion that Col. Davie's plan 

 of reducmg the cotton crop, by obtaining an 

 agreement among the planters to plant one-half 

 or two-thirds of a crop, is impracticable. 



I also believe that it is the true policy of the 

 Southern or cotton growing States, to retain, 

 by all means in their power, their ascendency 

 Ln the cotton markets of the world, and to do 

 nothing calculated to encourage the extension 

 of tlie growth of Cotton in in other portions of 

 the world. 



I however, disagree to the opinion that " there 

 is not now an over-production of Cotton." I am 

 inclined to believe that the low prices are to be 

 aecribed »!«i?;/.y to the heavy crops. It is fa- 

 miliar to all who have been in the habit of at- 

 tending to the accounts brought from Europe 

 fay the different arrivals of vessels, that the 

 prices there are controlled principally hy the 

 latest accounts from this side of the water, of 

 the prospects of the coming crop, or the proba- 

 ble amount of the supply of Cotton from the 

 United States. If the latest accounts from Amer- 

 ica had been, that the prospect was good, or in 

 favor of a large supply, then the prices there 

 (in Europe) fell, and vice versa. 



And the.se accounts from America seem to 

 have a greater control than all other causes com- 

 bined. The reduction of price of the raw ma- 

 terial induces, to some extent, an increase of 

 tliecousumption, by enabling the manufacturer 

 to make and .sell the manufactured goods a lit- 

 tle lower. But when we consider how little 

 must be the cost of the raw material contained 

 in a yard of heavy cotton goods — even at 10 

 cents per pound of the Cotton, vi-e cannot sup- 

 pose lliat the price of the raw material can have 

 much influence in increasing or diminishing the 

 consumption, unless the jirice should be much 

 higher than it has been for many years. Take 

 the cost of the raw Cotton in a yard of manufac- 

 tured cotton goods, (even at 10 cents per pound,) 

 from the price of that yard of goods, and it will 

 ^30w, that if the consumption is govenied by 

 the price of the manufactured goods, it is main- 

 }y hy the cost of the manufacturing — not of the 

 raw material. 



It seems to me that if the consumption kept 

 pace with the production, the price would not 

 be afl'ected ky it either way, to any great ex- 

 tent ; but that if the manufacturer had always 

 found a ready market for his goods, he would 

 have continued to purchase the Cotton at the 

 usual price, and therefore there would be but 

 Httle variation in the price of Cotton. On the 

 contrary, however, the manufacturer could not 

 (896) 



obtain a market for his goods — they would ac- 

 cumulate upon his hands — he would be compel- 

 led to reduce the wages of his operatives, or 

 stop his manufacturing machines. He could not 

 afford to buy Cotton any longer, unless at redu- 

 dod prices, and in less quantitie.?. There being 

 difficulties in getting off manufactures, unless at 

 reduced prices, a like difficulty in selling the 

 raw Cotton would be produced, unless at redu- 

 ced prices. The prices then must come down. 

 I will not extend my remarks. The report, 

 in other respects, I concur in. I would prefer 

 that portion, or sentence, stricken out, as I am 

 inclined to thing that its omission would not be 

 inconsistent with the rest of the Heport. 

 Respectfully, 



W. J. ALSTON. 



[The cotton crop of the United States, of 

 1844, was 2,400,000 bales — the largest ever 

 made ; not\\ithstanding, the stocks in the Amer- 

 ican ports on the 30th of August, the end of the 

 cotton year, were less than they were on the 



30th of August, 1844 !.. 65,646 bales. 



By the last dates from Havre, the 

 stocks of American Cotton were 

 less than last year at the same 

 time 19, ,'500 



85,146 " 

 In Liverpool, they were more than 



at the same time last year 64,300 " 



Making a deficiency in stock of. . .20,846 bales, 

 as compared with the same periodsof 1844, not- 

 withstanding a crop of 2,400,000 bales. 



The stocks in the other Continental ports can- 

 not be stated, but they are not large. The stocks 

 in spinners' hands in France are moderate. In 

 England they are large, but much smaller, com- 

 pared with the extent of their trade, than it was 

 their practice to hold some few years since. It 

 is not unreasonable to assume, therefore, that 

 had not the consumption been curtailed in the 

 United States, by the excessive duties on im- 

 ports, and more especially those on the coarser 

 kinds of cotton goods, the consumption of Cot- 

 ton at this time, would not only have been 

 larger, but quite sufficient to have kept pace 

 with the production, without the disproportion- 

 ate decline in price that has taken place between 

 it and the articles manufactured from it.] 



Import of Cotton, expressed in 1 ,000« of bales. 



From 1841. 1842. 1843. 1844. 



United States ..1,387 1,534 1,904 1.682 



Brazil 100 104 115 123 



■West Indies 72 72 49 47 



East Indies 324 316 227 299 



Egypt 123 108 469 126 



Stocks imported, and consumption of Cotton 

 in Europe, reduced to bales of 300 lbs. each. 

 Imports. ConBumption. 



1841 2,291,010 2,215,026 



1842 2,477,266 2,422,926 



1843 2,949,000 2,654,000 



1844 2,736,843 2,667,469 



From the above, it appears that in 1841, the 

 imports exceeded the consum{)tion, 7,5,984 ; 1842, 

 54,340 ; 1843, 295,000; 1844. 69,374 bales. 

 Stock Isf of January. 



1841. 1842. 184"3. 1844. 1845. 



777,610 863,421 926,102 1,239,000 1,321,726 



Total deliveries, from which are deducted in- 

 termediate shipments, or surplus of exports from 



