New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-11-02
THE corroy cRop AND TAX.

The returns published by the Bureau of sta
tistics relative To the cotton crop show that
upon 5.OG7. O2j acres sown. "A crop OF 1,56S,31'
bales of $50 lbs. each has been produced. The
tax of - cents per pound on this crop would
amount to Si7,Gil,0lG %, which, deducted from
the total value of the crop, estimated at 81 cents
per pound (Sl4s, 2O9,7 TAG 5O), would leave to the
PRODUCERS net result above the tax of $l3Oj65,-
100 2s, or S2j per acre for each acre planted
Estimating the crop of 1853 (3,113,9G2
bales) ms worth an average of 13l cents per
pound the crop of that year would amount TO
$2lG20S,9G2 50 in value. The crop OF the
present wear falls below this in value by about
S7O,OOO,OOO, or 30 per cent The cost of pro-
duction is also somewhat higher under free
than slave labor. But in view of the fact that
n far less area of cotton and relatively far
larger area of corn and food crops, have been
planted throughout the South this year than
during most of the years prior to the war, the
above results do not show an unfayorabe ten
dency in Southern industry. The South will
have less cotton to SELL but it ought to have
less corn, grain and provisions to buy for home
support. If such shall prove to be the case, the
South will grow richer annually despite con
siderable falling off in the cotton crop as COM
pared with the crop before the war.
Petitions for tho repeal OF the cotton-tax
are circulating all over the South, and conf
dent hopes seem to be INDUCED that Congress
will repeal it at the approaching session. Some
are even hattering themselves into the delu-
sion that the portion of tax already paid will
be refunded, as if there were something IN
hcrcntly outrageous or essentially wrong IN
tho tax itself Undoubtedly, one motive in
passing the tax was to assess some part OF the
expenses of the war upon the section and class
deemed Immediately responsible for the re
bellion. TO this extent it may be conceded to
DC levied for punishment as well rs for revenue.
If this were the only motive which entered
into its enactment this very fact would now
be n sufficient reason for its repeal, especially
"a the punishment falls on the loyal lab0ring
blacks as well as on the wealthy planters. But
there are other reasons which the close of the
war does not remove Although the cotton
tax is, we believe, the only tax assessed on an
agricultural product, as such, yet 1t must be
remembered that cotton is the only staple OF
which the United States has anything like
monopoly and when n country has monopoly
of an agricultural product which foreign nations
must consume, statesmen and economists gen.
orally have agreed in the proposition that
tax on its production does not diminish the
production in any injurious degree, but is paid
by the foreign consumer. 1t was because Con-
gress believed the tax on cotton would really
be paid principally by the English, French,
and other foreign consumers, that they levied
the tax.
Nor is it fair to condemn il rs sectional
tax, because no Northern agricultural products
are taxed. 1t must be remembered that in the
present dearth of manufactures mt the South,
nearly the whole body of our Internal Revenue
laws impose their burdens directly and almost
only on the North. The South pays very little
of them either rs "A producer or consumer
Whether Congress should repeal the cotton-''M
as matter of National economy NAV he very
proper question for the fullest a.|'a','n and