The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-01-04

Certain of the solid men of Boston have issued
ProRuncanento against New York 1t comes TO
us IN the shape of a protest, from Committee of
the Boston Board of Trade, against the establish
ment Of Branch Houses in New York, for the sale,
at first hands, of cotton goods manufactured in
Massachusetts The theory of the Committee is.
tnat the Agency system is all wrong, and that
during the twelve years it has been in operation,
it has worked a serious injury to the business of
Boston, while it has by no means answered the
expectations of the enterprising firms with whom
1t originated. The manner in which these Apen-
cles came to be formed at first, happened, we are
told, in this wise. In 1876 there was a glut of
certain kinds ofcotton goods in the Boston mar
ket, and to get rid of this surplus stock, few
leading Houses sent Agents to New York armed
with pattern cards and sample bales, with the
view of efecting sales in anticipation of the reeu-
lar demand. The adventure proved so successful
that it was followed up by other merchants; but
with this di1erence-that instead of pattern cards
and sample bales, sFirst Branch Houses were
opened in New York for the sale of cotton goods
manufactured from Boston capital. This move
ment has progressed from year to year, until
there are, at the present time, nineteen Branch
Houses in New York, whose aggregate of sales
amounts annually in value to twenty-five millions
OF dollars. In brief the Branch Houses have
swallowed upa considerable portion of the bust
ness of the parent firms, and the question dis
cussed by the Board of Trade is-whether it would
not be to the advantage of the Boston merchants
to go back to first principles? The Committee
argue that if the cotton goods of Massachusetts are
in demand, those who want them will send to
Boston for them, just readily as they do now to
New York; and that it is virtually sacrificing the
commercial interests of Boston to the extent of
twenty-five millions of dollars annually, indepen-
dent of the damage done to collateral branches
of trade, to permit New York to reap the sole
benefit, to that amount, of the products of Boston
capital. 1t is nice question; but it is very ably
treated in the pamphlet before u.s. 1t touches,
moreover, upon some other points, due consider
alton ofwhich is quite applicable to the future
commercial prosperity of Baltimore as to that of
BOSTON, With respect to manufactures generally,
the Committee contend that proper observance
OF the laws of trade requires that the seller should
keep his goods at home, and allow the purchaser
TO come TO him; that sending the goods to another
domestic market for sale, does not increase the
consumption; that forced sales operate to the
injury of the manufacturer, and that BUYERS
naturally seek the markets nearest the point of
production, because such markets are the cheapest.
These are facts which cannot be controyerted
The Committee, therefore, recommend that. by
a general concurrence of the Mercantile Houses
especially interested in the manufacture and sale
of cotton goods, the Branch Houses shall be abol-
cbod md Tho h,,c;
latter, concentrated at Boston. They fortfy the
conclusions they have reached, by adducing the
following argument: The Boot and Shoe trade of
Massachusetts constitutes of the largest manu-
featuring interests not only of that State, but of
the whole country; and they assert that ''ts vigor
land stability are attributable, mainly, to the
adoption of the plan of sale at home" During
the infancy of this trade the system of Branch
Houses was adopted, but it was found to be inju-
rious, from the expenses and risks by which it was
accompanied, and which led finally to its abandon
ment, and 10 the substitution of the policy of
selling exclusively at home and of limiting the
manufacture to the demand. The business, which
was previously languishing, soon became prosper
Gus, and during the seven years that followed, and
until the crisis of 1857, in amount to fourteen
millions of dollars per annum. In the commercial
revulsion of 1857, most of the important Shoe
Houses in Boston suspended payment; but nearly
all finally recovered, and paid their obligations in
full; whilst, in New York, "out of twenty five
Wholesale Boot and Shoe Houses that drew their
supplies from Massachusetts, twenty-four failed;
few of whom, if any, paid their debts in full;
land many of them made but trifing dividends"
The above illustration is regarded as proving,
conclusively, the advantage of selling goods at
home, instead of consigning them elsewhere. But
there are also other advantages which, in the
opinion OF the Committee, would accrue to Boston
from annulling the Agencies and recalling the
trade. If purchasers went to Boston to buy their
cotton goods, they might, possibly, be induced to
buy there likewise the textile fabrics of England
and Continental Europe; and the system of direct
imports would thereby be largely encouraged.
The Committee allege that the supremacy of New
York, as an importer of foreign Dry Goods, has
arisen from the absorption of Massachusetts, capt.
tai in Home manufactures. This however, is
true only in part. The merchants of other sea-
port towns have materially assisted in giving to
New York almost monopoly of the import
trade, and are now suffering from the effects of
step SO improvident, and so utterly at variance
with their true interests. The Boston Board Of
Trade allude, significantly to what Boston might
have been, if her merchants had not seriously in