The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-02-08
GEORGIA VS.. eH1o-AaAIN.

some weeks since. bis quotation from Adam
Smith, is wholly irrelevant, and his ded action
from it absurdly inconsequent. His object is
to show that the home valuation of products is
the true criterion for estimating the compara-
tive amount of value produced in two Sites or
countries. Mr.. Campbell had maintainsd as
we have done, that the common market value
is the true criterion-that there can be N COM
parson without common standard of ca, mpar-
ison. This would seem to be self-e sident
proposition; and it is difficult to imagir how
any sane mind can fail to receive it as s. on as
it is presented. But Mr.. Stephens insist that,
in estimating the comparative wealth OF Ohio
and Georgia, the corn, and wheat, and other
products of the latter, though necessar es of
life, and consumed at home, should be rated
higher than the same articles grown in Ohiol
He forgets that money is not wealth, bat its
representative. A bushel of corn or a. barrel of
flour feeds as many mouths in Ohio as in Geor-
gia; and if it is grown cheaper and eaten Raeap-
er in the former, the advantage is on thae side,
instead of being on the side of Georgia, where
it costs more. But, in estimating the annual
product of the two States, it is clear tb%t the
common market value is the true criterit;s In
answering this view of the matter, Mr.. ST. Ahens
quotes as follows from Adam Smiths 9alth
of Nations:
@"There is in every society or neighbl hood
| an ordinary or average rate of both wag and
profit in every different employment Of labor
and stock
"There is likewise in every society or eigh-
borhood an ordinary or average rate Of rent,
&C."
Again:
These ordinary or average rates mfy be
called the natural rates of wages, prof and
rents, at the time and place in which the, COM
monty prevail"
These are very plain and undeniable pr posi-
tons, but they have not the remotest ref renee
to the matter in hand. There is no hint t the
comparison of the values produced in two tates
or nations, and nothing of the kind wis so
much as dreamed of by the author. In fas t, the
last sentence of the citation excludes thu idea
of comparison, since the author confin IS his
observations upon rates and prices to = the
time and place in which they ordinarily pre-
vail" How singular that such plain and ;obvi-
Gus propositions, which are as undenial !e as
the axioms of Geometry should be COM rued
into an endorsement of the position tax, by
Mr.. Stephensl The argument of Mr. Can bbell
proceeded on the undeniable fact that the lame
article may bear different prices in diff srent
countries, which is all that Adam Smith q serts
in the extracts above-but Mr. c. denied, s we
did, that these local and differing prices were
to be taken as the standard of compa ison
| Ctonbapo ~ e. a.:
economy; but Judging by this citation fro the
"Wealth of Nations" we fear that he N,s no
clear views of tie subject.
Mr.. Stephens undertakes to justify his ,mis-
sion of the article of hay from the estim tie of
products of the two States. He does so q the
ground that the fodder crop of Georgia not
returned in the census. He admits tn 1 no
return is made Of the far greater crop of ohio
and says: 4.
"But the gentleman insists that hay sAoud
not be left out of the Ohio list of products NY
reasons for leaving it out were given befo e. 1t
is because there is no return in the cens' s for
fodder or shucks, that species of forage tn It we
| use for stock in Georgia. We produce at least
| 600,000,0O0 pounds of fodder, estimating 900
pounds to every so bushels of corn; be sides
| iuihSuoC duhiiltlCo VI COTH SuuChS, WUlcE COn-
stitute the food for our stock, Just as hay does
in Ohio. For this large and valuable pr duct
there is no return.
But the gentleman says, that in Ohio they
make more corn than we do and hence more
fodder Not so, sir. In Ohio they do not save
| their fodder at least it is not usual with hem
to do it. They put their labor upon saving hay.
We grow an immense amount Of grass in ;eor-
gia, but we do not cut it or save it. We pts our
labor in saving corn blades and shucks and
we might as well claim our uncut grass our
cQrn6elds, product to go into the esti nate,
as for the gentleman to claim the unsaved corn
blades which grow on their corn stalks. And
besides this, sir, there is no return in the csasus
for cotton seeds, which, in Georgia, amoa It in
value, annually, at moderate estimate, a. not
less than Sl,000,000. So, for these reasc as
did omit the article of hay, | stated, AMI, did
so properly, as l conceive and with its mis-
sion, and the omission of the correspoi; ding
products of Georgia, upon the gentleman 'sown
basis of calculation-not his last one, of New
York prices, but the basis he gave me two ears
and upwards ago-Georgia, with a popul stion
of less than half that Of Ohio, and with lasld
little over twothirds in quantity, and something
under one-third in value, produced, in lB49,
according to the census returns, agricultural
products exceeding those of Ohio in amount
nearly S500,000." :
The reader must bear in mind that Ohio pro-
duces, one year with another, about twife as
much corn as Georgia, and, as consequ. nee,
twice as much fodder. But Mr.. Stel lens
insists that the Ohio fodder is not saved, but
wasted. He has no authority for any ruch
assertion The people of Ohio may not nave
fodder in the same way that it is saved in eeor
gia, by stripping off the blades and tying hem
into bundles-but they are nevertheless wed
and consumed. 1t is not the habit of Mort lern
farmers to waste or destroy what is uaeful.
Southern men, on the contrary, make a | oast
of their prodigality in this particular.
The "uncut grass" of Georgia, of which Mr..
s. speaks, is another set-off. But is not the fact
notorious that there is far more grazing lone
in Ohio than in Georgia? Southern crosses
are coarse and inferior in quality, while those
of the North are of great value.
But these dwelling subterfuges are rally
unworthy of serious notice; and we feel tbs we
owe an apology to the intelligent reade, for
making mention of them.
Mr.. Stephens next essays to show that 'rof
its derived from capital are greater in Gel rgia
than in Ohio. He says:
"And the main object of the gentlt nan
from Ohio seemed to be to show that the tapa-
city of Ohio, with her free labor, was f:uch
greater in the production of wealth, or the
development of her resources, than that of Z cor
gia, with her slave labor. Then, sir, LEI the
\ n