Charles City Republican intelligencer. [volume] (Charles City, Iowa) 1861-1864, 1862-12-25
MisttlIanp.
From the Ke<D Y Gate City
The Coal and Sorghum Of Iowa.

Mr.. EDITOR The exception which
have taken to the Coal and Sorghum
statistics of the United States Census
appears to be disputed. l am forced
to notice these doubters at the risk of
being charged with a desire of thrust
ing myself into the public prints.
The value of the coal reported to
have been produced this is the
word used in that document-in Iowa,
is stated to be $500. If the Marsh
ais were limited to those banks pro
ducing" $500 it would require but
thirteen banks or less to make the amt
| will leave it to any one knowing
anything about the coal statistics OF
this State whether this meagre show
ing is not incorrect to large extent.
The fact is, which | did not know at
the time l wrote my article for your
paper, that the portion Of coal "pro-
duced has been embraced i'm the val
ne of "raw material, fuel" &c, used
in the manufactures producing $500
and upwards. When a separate table
in the United States Census stated
that the figures in it gave the amount
"produced' during the year in the
State named, the general Impression
is made that it embraced all that was
produced. | wished to correct this
impression 10y calling attention to it.
In this city alone the annual consump-
ton of coal is over 100000 bushels,
of the value of from SIS 200 to S20, 900
or three times that given for the whole
State in the document referred tn, and
most of it is not used ia manufacto-
ries.
In regard to the Sorghum items l
had one of the original returns of the
census on file in the State Department
examined to obtain information on
this and other matters. The result
was published in my report to the
Legislature last February. | did not
claim for it infallibility, and it may
have been incorrect. But as it gave
the result by counties-the aggregate
being 1852, ,36s gallons-if there bad
been such large discrepancy, as there
appears to be between this and the
printed report Of the census, it would
have been discovered, at least to some
extent, as these reports were extens-
lively circulated over the State. Ii l
am in error | am ready to admit it,
but think | am not. Every one who
has informed himself of the history of
Sorghum in the West, knows that llli-
nois was somewhat in advance of Iowa
at least not far in the rear of us in
the production of molasses yet what
do we see in the census report That
the larger and much more populous,
and equally as well adapted State of
Illinois, produced but T96, ,076 gallons,
to Iowa's l,903, ,474 gallons, much less
than half the quantity. Whilst | do
not desire to discredit the United
States census document nor depreci-
ate our own State productions, am
forced to believe that there is an error
in this matter somewhere. | am very
willing to be proven the erring one.
Again, let Us look at the whole amount
Of Sorghum molasses reported for the
United States and Territories 1t is
stated to be 7,235,025 gallons. If
the amount reported for Iowa is cor
rect, she produced one-fonrth of this
and 1s4 ,Il8 gallons over l would
like to believe this, but cannot.
Respectfully yours, wu.ox
DIS Noines, Noe. %, 1862