Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1874-11-28
HEMPHIs As An Iron MASUFAC-
TURISG P0INT

Inat Mempnls Is Qesll0eu 10 DecOLue
the great iron nsnuta curing center Of
the southwest is almost as clearly estsb'
lished and IS incontrOvertible es thai
night follows day. Il is a certainty ths
is forcing Itself into existence against
the almost total blindness and insctivi-
~ Of her capitalists; fact that is begin
ming to be conceded by other and older
cities, that have stTiveu to supply the
place that naturs has designed for Mem
phis. In he issue Of the Iron Age, o.
New York paper devoted exclusively
10 review Of the hardware and meta
trades OF this country, and cOnse'
quently authority on all subjects per.
tanning to the development of the
iron trsde--of November 18th, we SET
the subject editorislly and ably discussed
81 length, in which that paper comedies
the right to Memphis to control the iron
and cCal interests Of the southwest
against al competitors, and that only
on the construction Of one line of rail
way from Chickasaw, 's point on the
AEALE1EEC A4N G. AEADH Ill DB-LAuEAlUu ~
navi -ation, and within direct steamboat
communication with the Ohio and Mis-
sissippi rivers, through Colbert, Frank
lin, Mari N, Walker, Fayette aud Tds-
cslooss counties, to the Warrior river,
opposite Tuscaloosa, Alabama" to be s
main or trunk line, from which a
branch line is projected, leaving al the
Jaeger C oal-bed, Of the Warrior coal
field, and running to Birming-
ham, Alabama, crossing the Mem
phis and Charleston railway at Dick
son, Alabama, fifty-six miles from
from t eese Goa fields. After estimating
the cost Of building and equipping this
road, aud the comparative cost OF min
ing coal and iron il Alabama with that
Of Pittsburg-pIscing the former at fifty
cents and the latter at eighty-seven and
a half cents per ton for coal, andfor iron
seventy-fve cents per ton in Alab ana
the Iron Age argues that the building of
this road itself IS sufficient to place
Memphis in the position claimed-thlt At
Of controlling the coal and iron interest,
and consequently the most available
point in he southwest for establishing
the CREATES manufacturing city il the
southwest. In this argument, however,
the other and, to our judgment, more
feasible projected lines looking to the
accomplishment Of this object were not
taken into consideration. We allude to
the projected Selms, Marion aud Mem
zhis and the Memphis and Knoxville
narrow-gauge railways, thefOrmer pene-
frating and making direct connections
with he rich coal-felds of Alabama,
and the latter with the vast iron region
Of Tennessee. II the Iron Age eau see
30 much advantage for Memphis in the
completion of the road alluded to in its
article, then the assurance is made ten
fold sure in the completion of the latter
roads, in which Memphisns should see
such great achievements for the Bluff
city. In summing up the matter as re-
gRrds coal, the Iron Age says,
As broad principle in railroad trans
portEtiOn, the rate per ton psr mile has
has been laid down at ] J cents, although
these rates are reduced by two or more
roads in the country. The expense OF
water transportation for coal is variously
estimsted by the most extensive dealers
Of Cairo and the lower Mississippi at one
mill per ton per mile, some ranging as
high as one and half mills, all, how |
ever, applying TO flood stages Of water, |
and not taking into account other oh. |
stacles. Assuming one and half mills
as the cost OF water transportation, and /
one and 8 half cents as that of rail car
YiBge per mile on ton of coal, 600, 900
tons OF coal as the demand TO be sup
piled In competition with Pittsburgh, IL
il TO be demonstrated how this can be
done from this coal field. At these
rates by the Tennessee water line, and
intending cost OF mining, this coal
would reach Csiro at a cost per ton of
q G6, while Pittsburgh coal at ths
same point costs 81 Is. At Mem-
phis, by all rail route, this coal would
cost 81 95, against Pittsburg coal at 81
81 New Orleans The Jaeger coal would
cost - Is, aud Pittsburg coal 81 50. A
prominent Memphis coal dealer states
that the lowest price for Pittsburg coal
delivered there since the war, exclusive
1f profit to miner and shipper, is 81 per
II Z
coal can, by these figures, be delivered
SO Memphis at q cost Of q, ,173, 600, it
NAV be sold at what Pittsburg coal costs
there without profit TO miner or shipper,
and yet leave a profit of 81 ,227 600 in
favor Of the Jaeger coal, and, while do
jug this, would pay 7-peT-cent. divi-
dend on railroad transportation. Fur
ther, the transportation from Pittsburg
has, in the view Of practical river men,
ceased to be a question of coal. and be-
come one Of lumber. So serious has
the cost Of lumber f)r barges become,
that ii il asserted that iron must
shortly be substituted ia this con-
struction. Another great advantages
possessed by this cOal-feld for south.
ern supply is the absence of the
necessity Of stocking large quantities
during high water 20 provide for de- |
mand in low stages Of navigation, aud
recurring the investment Of large capi-
tai. This, with Memphis as the outlet,
b. practically unnecessary. Assuming
the cost Of floating coal from PittsbuTg
~ Memphis to be 81 so per ton, interest
on stocks increases It TO 81 90 per ton;
aud by the Tennessee water-line to
Memphis, at 81 0S, interest would In
crsEse il 10 81 IS per ton. Taking the j
estimated cost OF transportation by rail
by way Of the Memphis and Charleston =
railroad aud the iity-six miles Of Chick I
assW road % DicksOn's, at rates gwen
bv engineers, aud comparing them with ,
hose oy the Tennessee water-line, We .
would have rates on coal and iron a. !
follows: Cost OF one ton delivered at
Memphis by water, 81 IS; cost OF one
ton delivered az Memphis, al rail, 81 p,
Giving land carriage cost so nearly :
saual 70 water that where the distance
is materially shorter, as in this case,
the former is preferable. In substani-
ating this, the statement is made
that the Indianapolis and st. Louis 8
railr0ad has carried, under contract, zig
irCn from South ST. Louis to Pittsburg, s
g di.tanee Of 835 miles, for s. per ton s
being less taan one ceut per ton per '
mile COmparing the water cost from J
PitsouIg 70 Memphis, at 81 %, with
lsst os the jaeger coal at same point 4
ia the TeuRessee river st 81 %, we have I,
a difference 0f 20 cents per ton in favor Of b
ne later, whict, on 500 900 tons, would &
1--WE q difference N freight alone Of I,
ss7009 Farther, composing toe cogt Y
of pitlshnrg ana AlabaRG Goals laid q
lOwa II Memphis, we find il 70 be: Q
Pitt siai-e eosi per ton, s. Alabama al, 3
.iv Ten1essee river, = Os; Alabama
coal, sll rail, - %; tiIas giving an sctuGl
.qo6t OF nearly 100 Pet cent. on the cap. c