Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1844-10-26
1913, estimated 100, $40

This statement, if il be correct, shows an in
crease in the supply actually sold in 1910 OF 49,
25S hhds, and a further increase in the quantity
actually sold in 1871 of IL, 595 hhds vet no two
crops ever sold for as much money. We are
told that the merchants lost on the latter crop: adj
United But VIC are inrther told that 'they made
money in 1910" The sales in 1912 increased only
1928 hhds, and in 1913 decreased 31,5lS hhds,
making the sales of the last two Years only
1923 hhCs more than the sales of the Two years
preceding the passage OF the late Tariff Yet,
no one denies that an enormous decline has ia.
ken place. The fact is thus made evident, that
the increase in the market did not continue after
the passage of the Tariff of 1912, although il had
increased enormously, Immediately before that
event. We have then another fact 10 support the
testimony against protective regulations, drawn
from the former history of the tobacco trade;
while the above table gives us no better reason 10
believe that the low prices of the last two years
were occssioned by an orersupply, independent OF
a diminuiion of the demand than The estimates OF
Mr. Dodge which were treated 50 cayalicrly by
the gentleman who introduced them.
1t NAV be remembered that in my first com
municalion to the Enquirer, gave table of cx
ports OF Tobacco from 1921 10 1913 inclusive
with the value each year and the average per
bhd during each Tariff. This statement was
assaed both BY "Tuckahoe" and the Richmond
Wing, because il did not contain statement OF
the home consumption. In my second commune
cation, | took, both the estimate OF "Tuckahoe"
and of his witness Mr.. Dodge, as to that matter
Even this does not seem 10 be satisfactory; for,
am again attacked, because estimate the home
market at too much. Having been required to
make an estimate of the home market, preferred
taking both of those which had been furnished
by my opponent-thcn the battery is changed, and
I M ona lifipl Sr,p1l. this SubiecI. he
cause am 70 merchant and cannot have The ne
ccssary information. Yet, those gentlemen were
perfectly sure | was a merchant-yea very
experienced merchant-until | corrected the
error into which, they had fallen by supposing
that "Henry" was Charles f. Osborne, Esq.,
And finally, all my facts and arguments are OF no
avail, because did not state the amount on hand
in foreign countries an error, which is in
great degree corrected by the long periods OF
time included in the estimates OF the average va
lue of tobacco during each OF our Tariff tcgula-
tons. This matter is now taken into considera-
ton, 50 far as the question al issue between
"Tuckahoe' and myself is concerned And hav-
ing followed my opponent wherever he chose TO
lead, can discover nothing which makes oul
stronger case for him, than the facts and figures
first presented.
In the article in the Richmond Wing of the
23d inst. addressed to the planters OF Virginia
by James Gray, ESQ., who has been standing
sponsor for the articles signed "Tuckahoc," that
gentleman represents himself as having been
drawn by me into discussion on this subject
Now, if Mr.. Gray will read my first communi
cation TO the Richmond Enquirer, he will find,
that took less notice of him than he seems TO
imagine. What notice did take OF him was
courteous; and referred TO his statements as
perfectly correct. What he chooses to call has po
aton | lid attack in laying down a general prin-
ciple and subsequent investigation satisfies me
that ! was correct The gentleman should re.