St. Paul daily globe., 1888-05-28


would follow the introduction, duty
free, of such devilish contrivances. Mr..
Randall unfortunately did not pursue
his studies far enough; he does not tell
his listeners that, when bale of cotton
is sold, a deduction is made by the buyer
for bale and tie, deduction that is
to cover all the accumulatiOnS or dirt,
dust and other foreign substances. In
addition the seller loses the value of the
samples taken from the bale from time
to time.
In view of this fact, and of the further
fact that the cotton planter may sell his
cotton in Liverpool, but he is not per-.
mitted to take in exchange all the wool
ems his English customer is ready to
give him, it seems only fair that the
cotton planter should be permitted to
buy his ties wherever he can get them
cheapest.
Mr.. Randall thinks not. For one dol
lars worth of ties the planter now pays
Sl.35. Mr.. Randall thinks he should be
made to pay at least S1.70 for the same,
quantity. Mr. Randall declares further
that this increase would not diminish
the profits of the cotton growers. He
actally says: "Tbe cotton growers of
the cotton belt do not suffer in any way
as regards the price of cotton ties.
They sell their entire bales, including
bagging and iron, at cotton rates, and
no tare is charged in this country and
the charge abroad is borne by the ship
per-"
1t seems scarcely possible that man
OF MIR. Randall'S position should be ig-
norant of the untruths expressed and
implied by this statement. Expressed,
for tare Is charged, and it is paid not by
hn oh h,,f fhn -
in every purchase it is calculated, Il; IL the the
price, and the grower receives that
much less than he would get except for
the allowance which has to be made.
Any cotton buyer who knows any
thing about his business could have
given MI. Randall information which
would have saved him from so serious a
mlSStatement. AS sustaining this view
we quote the testimony given before the
tariff commission by James W. English,
mayor of Atlanta:
For commercial convenience, we weigh
bale of cotton here, and pay for the gross
weight. When the cotton is landed in Liver
pool and sold. 6 per cent is deducted from
this, Just as 10 per cent is deducted for tare
on New Orleans sugar. We regulate the
matter here not by taking this per cent off,
as they do on the other side, but in the price
of cotton. Therefore, the cotton planter
the cotton tie and the bailing, as has been
stated"
The committee of the cotton exchange
of Savannah, appointed to appear before
the tariff commissioner, said: ''The
idea that the cotton planters gets back
their money from the purchasers of raw
cotton, which they eXpend for bagging
and ties, we, as cotton merchants and
cotton planters, know to be untrue"
But, for the sake Of argument, admit
that the tare is not changed; let US say
the grower sends bale of cotton, which
with baling and ties and dirt weighs 500
pounds, and that he gets for it 10 cents
or $50. He has then to count his eX-
penSes. The cost of ties does not in
crease or decrease the price of the cot
ton, He must have ties whether they
cost 81 or S1.70. The difference in the
expense of raising the cotton and get
ting it to market, due to the tariff,
comes out of the pocket of the cotton
grower. Suppose he does sell his ties at
10 cents pound: he would get 10 cents
for them whether ties were free or
taxed. He pays now S1.35 for 81 Of ties;
Mr.. Randall says he ought to pay S1.70.
The tariff of 35 per cent on cotton ties
adds 100000 to the cost Of the cotton
crop; it does not add 81 to the price re-
celVed. IL ties were tree the cotton pale
would still bring $50.
This is plain to every man who is en-
gagged in business; to every practical
man. 1t is only when one has some
theory to sustain that he becomes con-
fused. Mr. Randall makes two errrone-
eous statements; first, no allowance is
made for tare. We have shown this is
not true. Next, that the additional
price for ties is no burden to
the cotton planter. He could Just as
well have said that it would be no
benefit to the planter if some phiian-
throphist would give him his ties free.
The purchaser does not know or care
whether the ties cost much or little; he
buys the cotton. The net profits on the
cotton crop are reduced Just the amount
of the tariff. The allowance in the
tariff would not enable the cotton grower
to get any more for his cotton bales, but
it would cost the South S500,000 more
than the existing duty. or s1,OOO,000 in
all.