Vicksburg weekly herald., 1870-08-13

hey catch him.
From tho N. .. Bulletln.l
COST AND PROFIT OF COTTON
PRODUCTION.
Whether cotton may be raised
with more profit in 1870 than in
1859, because Of its higher price
in money now than then, would
appear at first glance a very sim
pie question. And undoubtedly |
it is simple enough, considered |
under the deductive method Of
reasoning-that method, we mean,
by which the significance and
force of particular facts are de-
duced from general propositions
of an automatic character. We
made use of such a proposition a
few days ago, when, discussing
the value Of the cotton crop Of
1869 rated at twenty cents per
pound in gold, as compared with
the cotton crop of 1859 rated at
ten cents per pound in gold, we
assumed purchasing power to be
the only true standard Of measure
in a comparison Of this nature.
And there was no alternative. The
postulate belongs to that class of
truths without the unquestioning
acceptance of which ratiocinatiOn
on any subject whatever can have
no valid beginning, can make no
intelligent progress, and can come
to conclusive result. This being
so, we were justified in dismiss
ing, and indeed constrained Ia
dismiss, as self.evidently fallacious
and undepatable, the theory that
the real and ultimate value Of cot
ton, or of any other agricultural
product, to the producer is to be
measured by the money which il
will sell for; and, having done this,
we remitted the question whether
cotton production is more profita-
Bile now than ten or eleven years
ago to its proper basis-that OF
comparative purchasing powers,
not that of comparative prices as
expressed in money, an instru-
ment, not an inhexible measure,
by which one valuable is ex-
changed for other valuables. II
was not our purpose TO exhaust
the examination of the question
on this basis. Nevertheless we
said enough in the way Of illus
tration, as we conceived, to make
it clear that cotton planters did moi
realize less from four million bales
at ten cents per pound than they
are realizing from three million
bales at twenty cents pei
pound. But it is more diff,
licult, perhaps, than we first
accounted it TO impress upon the
general mind that twenty cents PEE
pound may signify no better pricC
than ton cents per pound once
signiGed, and that $160,O00,0O(
coming to planters from the sal,
of cotton may have formerly stooC
to them for as great a value a
S24O,00O,00O, derived from tn,
same source, stands for to-day
At least VIC find this difficulty no
tably exemplifed in the following
brief letter from city reader:
Messrs Editor Bulletin: A fal
lacious comparison is very wei
written-but based on what? o.
your simple assertion. Would yol
please give us q few figures, show
, ing cost of cotton produced /
: 1859 IA crop of 4,675,O00 bales,
comparing cost of same in 1856!
q estimating crop 2,9O0,0O0). Th
q present labor although dearer,
cheaper in the end, there bein
I more cotton picked to the hant
I We arc almost on a par with 1S5
o "a crop of $4,000 bales.
@ 0blige yours, truly,
= CARoNDELET.
It To show by precise fgues
v exhaustive detail the cost Of CO
} ton production in 1857 as col
IS pared with its cost in 1SI
10 would take d large volume cral
IS med with statistical tables al
Ip marginal commentary. The tal
'. is absolutely impraCtiCable with
ID the limits Of newspaper disqui
D. ton. A few salient facts, viii
ia no we'll informed person will d
t. pute, will be sufficient.
lis "Another agency says 90
at missioner Wells Ia his last d
OF terly report (which has poworl
y y contributed TO impair the z