New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-06-07
TEA.CIITURE-ITs LEssONs.

The Tea Plantation South Carolina Of Dr. JlHins Smith, Is
"uegtcicd ard gong rIidy 90 destruction"
Such is an item going the rounds Of the journals.
The fact is simply announced, without seeming TO elicit
remark or impe 10 a reflection. Yet there is whole
chspter of Political Economy in that simple fact, 50
curly stated thoughtlessy read Let US set il more
distinctly before readers
Tea is the almost universal evening beverage of our
people. We pay several millions of dollars per annam
for We think the amount annually paid for by the
actual consumers in this Country is not less than twen-
~ millions though ts first cost in China is much less
than this And, as the Chinese require little that we
produce for expectation, good part OF is is paid for
in cash.
Now we have in this country all the varieties OF eli
mate and soil possessed by China, and more 1t is NOR
ally demonstrate that produce everything that
she can, with some things that she cannot
Tea is product under Providence of human labor
If the production fairly naturazed in this country
the amount reproduce chest or hundred
pounds of it in China would produce like amount here
Nay, it is morally certain that Yankee ingenuity and
intelligence would speedily devise and introduce labor
saving processes and machinery that would greatly
abIdee the work of gathering and curing it, rendering
the labor required efficient and productive than
that Of the Chinese employed in the Tea culture
ary paying three four times much for every pound
they consume as the Chinese grower receives fo it.
Extensive transportation coastWard long seavoysge,
then transportation inland with the heavy cash invest
and frequent transfers from owner TO owner make
every pound Of Tea cost the American consumer several
times the sum received for by the Chinese producer
Trsnsfer the Tea Culture, far the supply Of our
own wants is ncsmed from China TO those portions
Of our country best adapted by climate aud soil TO It's
successful prosecution and very great benefit would
result alike grower and consumer. The farmer who
now has bushel of Wheat or two of Indian Corn or
sheep, Bushel Of Apples, to sell for what would
buy him two pounds Of Tea would then receive eight
pounds Of Tea for the amount Of his labor or ts
products And the large aggregate of Capital aud Ba
sness Talent now absorbed in the Tea Trade would be
hbeIsed and mpeled toward works Of real utility AMI
bentfctDce. Instead Of two years elapsing between
tie grow ing Of Tea in China and the drinking Of il in
Minnesota with like expenditure of time in reaching
the Tea grower with products the Tea-crop
efS5S would be exchanged for portion Of the American
Whest.crop, COtton-crop HOgcrOP, &c. Of that same
year. and serious waste OF property through sea-damP
wrecks. fires &c. Sc be avoided There would be far
less aduteraton and mischief from poisonous Curing
pscknc ia lead, &c than az present Tor each makers
ways would become known TO the purchasers Of mis-
crop and ultimately TO the consumers who would avoid
the hurtfHl and prefer the salutary. We do not con-
slider Tea healthfu beverage at best bat it certainly
is far less SO at present than need be- because of the
chemical ignorance or reckessness of those who do
Dot whether the Tea they put up for foreign white
devils is poisonous or not.
Then why do We not grow our own Teas
For the same reasons, Substantially that prevent
growing own Silk and that for many years prevented
our growing our own Wool or Cotton and making our
own Cotton, Silk and Woolen Fabrics II is serious
costly, critical task, to naturalize a branch of
Industry in the face Of the natural competition and hos