The Opelousas courier., 1888-09-08

required dimensions at very slight
expense, the question of the cost OF
such a reform need not be considered:
The thickness of the bale it would
probably be impracticable 10 regulate,
nor is this n point Of mates~1 impor-
lance, as a moments consideration will
show; for with bales of even running
length and breadth, the manipulation
at every stage of their progress towards
the spinner would be much facilitated,
and the expenses consequently reduced.
Tt is safe to say that the enforcement OF
such a rule would save to the cotton
producers of the country at least $780,
900 q year in the cost of having their
cotton slowed on board ocean-going
vessels alone.
The National Cotton Exchange re-
commended that a standard of54 inches
* 90 inches be adopted for all press
boxes, but whether this is the most ad-
vantagcous size must be q matter for
the consideration of all concerned.
While it is evidently impossible to
fix the weight of cotton to be put into
each bale, it is certainly necessary that
some limit should be established. At
present a bale of cotton to be merchant
able must have a minimum weight of
300 lbs, but there is no maximum lin
it, and bales are put on the market
weighing 600. 700 and evene s high as
500 and 800 lbs. each. a
To say nothing of the Inconvenience
of this to the purchasers of cotton in all
large markets, who in purchasing 100
bales Of cotton may be called on to re-
ceive all the way from 10000 to 10000
lbs. OF over, to say nothing of the diff
|iculty of handling and COMPRISING
these bales, and the impossi-
bility of ocean going vessels avoiding
mistakes in ordering the requisite nulR-
Der of bales to complete their carg0es
mistakes that frequently cause serious
expense both to the exporter and to the
vessels), it is natural TO suppose that
so much per bale will take, as the basis
of their charges, the extra heavy rather
than the average bale. Indeed, they
are obliged to do so. for the tendency
is to increase the weight of the bales
beyond reason; and country merchants,
in this State at least, will to day pay
more per III for "A bale of cotton weigh
600 lbs. than for one of the same quality
weighing 400 to 500 lbs, as the freight
to New Orleans is the same on each.
1t is therefore evident that some a
imnm ana minimum limit of weight
should br adopted that would insure
the easy handling of all bales. that
would allow purchasers to form fP &C
curatt, idea of the weight of their pnr-
chases, and that would place producers
on the same footing as regards trans
portation and other charges.
If this is not done now, cotton bales
will increase in weight constantly, I'M
til, probably in the middle of the sea-
son, the men at tff seaports will refuse
to handle them. t..litl consequences to
the whole trade fhat can be readily
conceived.
When the existing system of cover
ing the cottqg bale is considered, it is
hard to see where it has n redeemiDg
feature.
The iute bagging used affords Il most
inadequate protection against damage
by wet and dirt. and against loss in
weight in handling, and it positively
and considerably increases the risks of
damage from fire, the fuzzy nature of
the material making it specially liable
to ignite from the slightest spark.
The producer pays a high price for
this bagging and gets absolutely moth
ing fol it, as it is practically of no COM
mercial value when stripped from the
bales by the spinner
It has been frequently stated-it has
been maintained even in Congress
that the producer gets the same price
for the jnte bagging that he gets for his
cotton. In q certain this is true,
but will any sensible man dispute that
the price of the cotton is reduced in
proportion to the quantity of jute bag
ging that has to be paid for? Is it me-
lcessary to point out that European
| spinners-mucll less American ~spinncrs
are not SO simple as to wish to pay us
full cotton value fs2 jute bagging that
is to them of no use
English buyers, in calculating the
prices they can pay for cotton in our
markets, deduct 2 lbs. per cwt. of liz
lbs. for bagging and ties, and loss of
weight in transit, so that for every bale
of 500 lbs. that a farmer sells, lie re-
| ceives, at most, the actual value of 1851
lbs. of cotton, while he has to pay for
the transportation and handling of the
full 500 lbs.
There can be no question that the
only return the cotton producers of this
country get for the jute bagging they
purchase is the Inadequate protection
of their cotton. OF money return they
act absolutely none at dH-and the same
may be said of the iron ties.
It takes to cover a bale of cotton of
500 lbs. say 2 yarda of bagging. weigh
ing II lbs. per yard, 124 lbs. To this
add the weight of 6 iron ties, say 10
lbs, and we have 224 lbs. rs the weight
of the covering and fastening of the
average bale of cotton as it goes
through the purchasers scales, in this
country. The tare and loss of weight
calculated by English buyers on each
500 III. bale is as ws have seen ;3l1 lbs
SO that we have to stand n loss of 8 lbs.
of actual cotton per bale, equal to one
and 4l5 per cent, or about 8 10000 bales
of cotton actually lost to MS on annual
exports of 100000 bales.
This is surely sufficient commentary
on the protection afforded by jnte bag
ging, without proceeding to consider
the waste during transportation and
handling in the interior, the increased
risks of fire, and the consequently in
creased rates of fire, insurance, and the
liability to damage on account of the
~ -