Gallipolis journal. [volume] (Gallipolis, Ohio) 1837-1919, 1852-03-25

extent of about 100000 bales pc
n year. OF course, il the amount {
n cotton grown during that perio
was the same as formerly, this add
tional amount would be thrown int
the European market. The question
S then, is, whether the price per poun
would be diminished. As an ali
I stract proposition, no one can den,
, that il would have the effect to de
crease the price per pound. II it b
} fact, that during this latter term o
t four wears. as the gentleman frou
| Massachusetts says, the price o
cotton has ranged higher, il mus
have depended upon some othel
cause-it must have depended upor
the amount Of the crop grown
But why did not the gentleman
extend his comparison a little fur
ther? Why not include 1857 HE
saw proper to leave that year ou1
of his calculation. Why did he not
inquire what was the present price
OF cotton, and compare that with
the price at former periodsl He has
not seen proper to do so. ] will call
the attention Of the gentleman to
one sentence from the London
Economist, of a late date-within a
few weeks. In speaking of cotton,
fl says:
"Although it Tcotton is now above the rates
Of uly last, it has been lower but once within
the last ten years."
The purpose Of the view taken by
the gentleman from Massachusetts,
evidently was TO show that the effect
of the tariff of 1912 was TO diminish
the price of domestic produce, and
that the effect Of the tariff Of 1916
was to increase that price. How
can the gentleman believe that9-.
Can he look at these tables, which ]
must charitably believe he has never
looked at, and come TO that conclu-
sionl Let me call the attention OF
the gentleman TO some extracts from
those tables-I speak particularly OF
those contained in the report of the
Secretary of the Treasury during
the present session Of Congress.
Mr.. Speaker, | was mistaken as
to the character Of my abstracts
They relate TO quantities and not
pieces. No tables are needed to-
show the present low prices Of
breadstuffs as compared with those
of 1916 and IS47. Before calling
attention TO my abstracts, them |
ought to state the gentleman's second
proposition, which was, that the
exports of domestic produce per
year, under the tariff of 1916, had
exceeded those under that of lS42.
| might say, again, what OF that!
What does that prove? As have
stated, of course, if you
diminish the amount of the domestic
Of cotton one hundred
and sixty thousand bales, that guam
tity goes TO foreign market, and 10
that extent swells the amount expor.
ted. The question, therefore, is,
whether you can find a foreign mar
ket for that additional quantity
That is the difficulty. Cotton must
find a market, if it is only at one
cent per pound. You must put it
nto the hands Of the manufacturer
md take such prices as he can afford
10 give.
Having accounted for the increased
lmount of expectation since 1916,
" the fact that 100000 bales Of
cotton, formerly manufactured here,
we're sent abroad, | proceed to show
hat the amount Of expectation Of {
Irticles Of agricultural produce, other
han cotton, have been greatly and {
diminished by the tariff Of !
S46, and increased by that of lS42. 4
The tariff of lS42 did not, TO any !
xtent, get into operation before /
S43, nor was its career materially I
roken off before 1S47. The capt.
al invested was not withdrawn to
ny considerable extent until about
he latter period. But in order TO !
e fair, | have put the year 1877 7
he year of the famine--into each Y
erioG, making the first period run 1
rom 1912 to lS47 inclusive, and the Il
after from lS47 to 1851 inclusive. 4
iere is the table: b
7afae of breddstufs and provisions .
exported annually from 1843 to 1851,
;1cI,ts;,,e- ;ttiuO fr1cfio,s