The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1873-11-13
Agricultural and Manufacturing Products.

General N. P. Banks. of Massachusetts, de-
livered lecture recently on :.The Systems OF
American Manufactures" in which he con-
trasted "the industrial organizations of the
North with that of the South. The Southern
States were compensated for the lack of domes-
tic manufactures by the production of the
great staple, cotton. In 1910 the cotton crop
was 100000 bales; in 1860 it was $4,000 1t
was because the labor system of the South had
been built on wrong basis that she was not
more prosperous and robust. The result OF the
late war would have long trembled in the balance
had Southern industry been based upon the
principles of the Northern system. The prln-
ciples and processes of Lowell and his asso-
ciates will never be fully carried out until our
raw material is manufactured on the ground
where it is produced"
Had our raw materia! been turned into
fabrics at home and sold to the consumers IN
America and exported abroad, says the Augusta
Chronicle and Sentinel, there would not be
much trembling in the balance about the re-
suit of the war. The victory for the South
would be permanent but not more startling
and decisive, SO far 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 be no trembling, no doubt about the re-
suit of the late contest had the South manu-
factured 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 England and of the country locate here,
where the greatest profits can be realized.
On this subject of agricultural and Manu-
featuring Profits" Hon. J. Proctor Knott Of
Kentucky, has delivered speech which
deserves more than passing attention from the
striking contrasts which he presents OF the
profits realized By the manufacturer in COM
parison with the producer. The whole story is
that the agricultural South and West have en-
riched 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. Louis Republican, and
which we present here: "rhis census informs
US that there were 5,922,47 persons engaged
in agriculture in the United States, and 2,O53,-
993 engaged in manufacturing of all kinds;
that the capital invested in agriculture, in
GLIDING the value of farms, farming imple-
ments and live stock on hand, was Sl1, ,l29 $685.
765, and the total capital invested in manufac-
turing was S2,llS,2OS,796. 1t will be noticed
that the number of persons engaged IN manu-
featuring is only about one-third the number
engaged in agriculture, and The manufacturing
capital of the country is less than one-fifth It's
agricultural capital. But when we come to
products and profits, the smaller interest goes
far ahead of the larger ones. The total value
of all farm productions including betterments
and additions to stock, was S2,447 ,53S, ,75S, and
the total value of the manufacturing product
of the country was S4,232, ,325, ,442, the gross
product of the smaller interest being nearly
twice as great in value as the gross product of
the larger one. If we divide the whole amount
of agricultural capital by the total number of
persons engaged in agriculture, we have an
average of 81 ,S7S 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 find that each person thus engaged
on an average of 81, SIS capital produced S4l2
Of gross values BY a similar computation we
find that the average capital to each person
engaged in manufacturing was 81, 2l1, and that
each person thus engaged on this average
amount of capital produced SS4S. The labor
and capital of farmer, therefore, yielded less
than half as much as the labor and capital of
a manufacturer. The census figures do not tell
us what the net profits of agriculture were, but
it will not be claimed that they were over ten
Der cent. on the capital involved. Indeed, if
we estimate a farm hands labor at Sl5 per
month and his board at $40 per month, both
together costing $500 year, and deduct this
from the average annual product (S412) of
each person ngaged in agriculture, we have
SIP as the farmers average net profit on the
labor of his hired hands-or only little over
per cent. on his average capital Of S1,S7S.
The profits of the manufacturing capitalist are
more easily and more accurately determined.
Adding together the total amount paid for raw
materials (S2, ,4SS, ,427 ,242) and the total amount
paid in wages (s775, ,5S4, ,343), and deducting the
sum ($3, ,264, oil $3.50 from the gross manufac-
turing product l$4, 232 1926, ,442) we have $685.
3l3S57 as the net profit on total manutac-
turing capital of 50, lis, POS, ,796-or over forty
FIVE per cent. And it is this business, paying
an average of IS per cent per annum, that is
"protected" by Government at the expense of
another business that pays only per cent.
"a very interesting phase Of this subject is
the large proportion of the manufacturing
capitalists profit in the average gross product
of his employee. We have seen that the
average gross product of the agricultural
laborer is $412 on an average capital of 81 ,S7S,
and that the estimated share of this which the
agricultural employer gets is SLY, and we have
seen that the average net product Of the manu-
featuring laborer is SS4S on an average capital
of 81, ,2l1 Dividing the total manufacturing
wages paid (S776, 343) by the total number
of persons employed in manufacturing $685.
S96), we find the average annual wages per man
to be 1913, and deducting this from the average
gross product of each mans labor (SS4S), we
have $40 as the employers share Out of
every Ss4S per annum earned by a manufac-
turing laborer, the employer gets $40 and the
laborer 1878. This shows pretty clearly where
the benefit of our so per cent. protective tariff
goes to-; it does not 60 to the American labor
er; it is monopoized by the manufacturing
But we need not go abroad for comparisons
or results where we have the evidence at home
before our eyes in the large Profits made by
every factory in the South f6r the last seven
years.
GooD ADvICE-In these times of business
depression and consequent strlngeincy in the
money market, the financial situation can be
;nnroved if every one will paw promptly his