New-York tribune., 1879-04-16
REGULATING THE COTTON TRADE.

THE BILL ENFORCING A TARE or COTTON AID
YANCED TO THIRD READINC-sIRoNG OPINIo>
FOR AND AGAINST.
ITRoM THE REGULAR CoRGrsPoNDENr or THE THBUNEI
ALBANY, April 15.-The Cotton Exchange
OF NewY0rk has shown great interest OF late II Mr
sheards bl fixing tare cotton bought by the bale
and doubtless III show increasing interest as the D
advances on way through the Legislature TO the
Governor. Mr. Saeard IL manufacturer OF e0tton
goods at Little Falls OF late years he has noticed that
the wrappngs OF his cotton bales were becoming more
and pOuderous As hs did not like to pay much
pound fer old rope and sheetlng as Tor coion
he asked that a are he granted on each bale IL WIS
refused by the dealers in NewYorz and other cities on
tne ground that it was not the custom Of the trad,
Mr. Sheari consequently introduced Dill IN the
Assembly early IN the present session compelling
dealers to allow tare The bill was very fercely
debated IL committee its appearance IN the
Assembly has been earnestly opposed To-day the OIL
came up for consideration in Committee OF the Whole
and the subject OF long debate Mr. Flynn OF
Brooklyn SAID that IL the bill became law NewYorS
would lose twothirds OF ITS cotton trade. Mr. Warner
a manufacturer OF cotton goods from Montgomery
County said that the manufaeturers of the state
favored the bill because they thought 1t just
They asked the Legisattre for relief from
an imposition. He could South and buy cotton ~lth
guarantee on the tar, nut lie cohd not 40 trat III
New YORK such a tare demanded ana accorded IN
tne cotton markets. Of Liverpool which controlled me
MIR. Slcard followed .hr. warner vita sptefi
listened to with interest by most Of the MEM
bers OF the Assembly. He said that cotton sold TO-
day was sold it, gross weight, and accordingly
manufacturers had To pay fol- good deal of old IRON
The United States manufacturers or cotton goo"s III
eompsrison with those of Great Britrln we're hand-
capped ~ 100000 in consequence of tare beng Ie-
fused. II right that al time when the manhIae-
turer- Of the United states were trying 10 compete WIN
he world once that they should be relieved of
such burden Tbree hftns OF the cotton that came to
NewYOrk Europe, that ts safe would not De
affected by the law. The cotton me
state had $40 900 600 invested IN their business All
they desired was permission to get what thty pald iOi
taFe gwen hay ana butter, and there was 10
reason why t should not be gwen on cotton.
Mr.. Srahan said that the bill gross specimen or
class legislation Every other trade controlled its own
bus ness; bat apparently the cotton manufacturers
could control theirs. II the cotton trade was 10 De
regulated might De regulated by the United states
ana not by the state Of NewYOrk EraSus Brooks pre-
seutcd memorial signed by 80 per cent OF the dealers
IN cotton In New-YOrk against toe passage OF the M.
The Legislature ought not 10 Interfere win an estab
lshcd rule of trade. Garner & Co., VINO USED ab"ht
bales ~ cotton year, were nos IN iaVOr or the
bl would be very glad TO see the BILL however, ne
Il National law. The NIL was tAen ordered 20
reading oy SO ayes the negative votes were not
counted