COTTON WAREHOUSES. 15 



The same plan was followed in arriving at the storage capacity of 

 North Carolina warehouses. By referring again to Table III, it will 

 be seen that the average storage capacity for the 114 warehouses 

 reporting from this State is 1,602 flat bales, 2,015 bales as offered, 

 and 2,709 compressed bales. This is very close to the average in 

 Georgia, and the same figures have been used in determining the 

 probable storage capacity of the 14 warehouses not reporting; 

 namely, 600 flat, 800 as offered, and 1,000 compressed. This gives 

 the following total capacity for North Carolina: Flat bales, 191,105, 

 as offered 240,405, and compressed 332,855. 



By referring further to Table III, it will be seen that the complete 

 list for Georgia comprises 990 warehouses. Table IV shows that the 

 county agents reported only 214 warehouses with the storage capac- 

 ity indicated. This is less than one-fourth of the number on the 

 complete list. In North Carolina the agents reported only 55 ware- 

 houses, which is less than one-half the number that are in use in that 

 State. In arriving at the number of warehouses for the different 

 States it would seem justifiable to estimate that the agents reported 

 about one-third or one-fourth of the actual number, inasmuch as they 

 reported less than one-fourth of the number actually existing in the 

 States of Georgia and North Carolina combined, where detailed sur- 

 veys had been made. But in order to be on the safe side, it has 

 been assumed that they reported approximately one-half of the 

 number in each cotton State, except Georgia and North Carolina, in 

 which States the number indicated by the survey has been used. 

 Doubling the number of warehouses reported by the county agents as 

 shown in Table IV, there results the number given in Table V. The 

 exact number reported in Virginia, Florida, and Tennessee is shown, as 

 the warehouses in these three States are located chiefly in large cities, 

 and it is believed that fairly complete figures have been obtained. 



The next problem is to arrive at the storage capacity in the different 

 States. It has been explained how this estimate was made for 

 Georgia and North Carolina, and, it will be remembered, this was 

 based on a comprehensive survey of these States. Comparing again 

 Tables IV and V, it will be seen that the reports of the county agents 

 for Georgia show a total storage capacity of less than one-half of that 

 actually developed by the comprehensive survey. In North Carolina 

 the same reports cover less than one-third of the storage space which 

 actually exists. This seems to be sufficient justification for multi- 

 plying the capacities shown in Table IV by two and one-half or even 

 by three. But instead of doing this, after eliminating the large 

 snipping centers, the capacities reported by the county agents have 

 been doubled, except in Georgia and North Carolina, where the 

 figures of the complete survey are used. The reported capacity of 

 warehouses for Virginia, Florida, and Tennessee has not been in- 

 creased. In addition, the storage space as reported for Charleston, 



