Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1873-11-07
VOL. %.
AEssICUTLTURAL AND 9IASGEAC-
'rsI RIM: IKslDI l,TS.

OF domestic manufactures by the rrC
duction of the great staple, cotton
In 1910 the cotton crop was 10000
bales; i'll 1860 it was 4, 800 900. |
was because the labor system of tn
South had been built on wrong basi
that she was not more prosperous ant
robust. The result of the late wa
would have long trembled in tn,
balance had Southern industry beel
based upon the principles of the North
ern system. The principles and pro
cesses of Lowell and his associates vii
! never be fully carried out until ou1
raw material is manufactured on the
| ground where it is produced
| Had our raw material been turned
into fabrics at home and sold to the
consumers in America and exported
abroad, says the Augusta Uroniclt
and Sentinel, there would not be
| much trembling in the balance about
the result of the war. The victory fOr
the South would be permanent, but
not more startling and decisive, so fan
as the engagements were concerned,
than when Stonewall Jackson fell like
a thunder-bolt upon this same General
Banks and General Shields and routed
their armies in the Valley of Virginia
No, there would he no trembling, no
doubt about the result of the late con-
test had the South manufactured as
we'll as produced cotton. But it is
encouraging to know that Gen. Banks
expresses the opinion that the South
will yet develop her greatest industries
when the manufacturers of New Eng
land and of the country locate here,
where the greatest profits can he real
lied.
On this subject of agricultural ana
Manufacturing Profits, Hon. J. Proc
tor Knott, of Kentucky, has delivered
a speech which deserves more than
passing attention from the striking
contrasts which he presents OF the
profits realized by the manufacturer
in comparison with The producer. The
whole story is that the agricultural
South and West have enriched the
manufacturing North.
The important and reliable facts
bearing on the question are the figures
of the last census, which we find in
the st. Ioni RrDnbiica2, and which
we present here "This census in
forms lis that there were 5,922, Al
persons engaged in agriculture i'll the
United States, and 2.O53, ,993 engaged
in manufacturing of all kinds; that
the capital invested in agriculture, in
cluding the value of farms, farming
implements and live stock on hand,
was 81 124, 1858, ,765, and the total cap
ital invested in manufacturing was
50, ,11S, ,2OS, 796. It will he noticed
that the number of persons engaged
in manufacturing is only about
one third the number engaged in agrl-
culture, and that the manufacturing
capital of the country is less than one
n1tn us a5IICtilt iiIdl cdtpitil. buI "tlSu
we come to products and profits, the
smaller interest goes far ahead OF the
larger ones. The total value of all farm
productions, including bettcrments
and additions to stock, was s., 2,4fI,
:53S, ,GJS, and tlie total value OF the man
ufactrring product of the country was
81 232 3D., 40 the gross product of the
interest being nearly twice as
great in value as the gross product OF
the larger one. Ii We divide the whole
amount Of agricultural. capital iy the
total number of persons engaged lii aS-
riculture, we have an average of 81 ,S1S
to each, and if We divide the value of
the gross product of agriculture by
the total number OF persons engaged
in that business, We tind that each
person thus engaged on an average
of 81, ,S7S capital produced $4l2 OF
gross values. By a similar, COM
putation we find that the average
capital to each person engaged in
manufacturing was $1,211, and That
each person thus engaged on this aver
age amount of capital produced $S48.
The labor and capital of farmer,
therefore, yieldedless than half as much
as the labor and capital Of manufac-
turer. The census figures do not tell
us what the net profits OF agriculture
we're, but it will not be claimed that
they were over ten per cent. on the
capital involved. Indeed, if we esti-
mate a farm hands labor at SO per
month and his board at so per month,
both together costing $500 year. and
deduct this from the average annual
product (S412) of each person engaged
in agriculture, we have S112 as the
farmers average net profit on the labor
of his hired hands-or only little
over G per cent. on his average capital
of S1,a7a. The profits Of the mann-
featuring capitalist are more easily
and more accurately determined. Ad-
ding together the total amount paid
for raw materials go, ASS, ,427, ,242) and
the total amount paid in wages
(s775, 5s4 ,343), and dedncting the sum
(s3. .264 OH $3.50 from the gross manu-
featuring product GA, 232, ,325, ,442), we
have s9Gs, ,313, ,s57 as the net profit on
q total manufacturing capital OF
s2,11s, 2Os, 796-or orer Jorty.fre per
cent, And it is this business, paying
an average of 45 per cent. per ann"m,
that is "protected" by the Government
at the expense of another business that
pays only 6 per cent.
"a very interesting phase OF tins
subject is the large proportion OF the
manufacturing capitalists profit in the
average gross product OF his employc
| We have seen that the average gross
product of the agricultural laborer il
s412 on an average capital of $1,s7e
op1 fbot Tho estimated share of this