The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1889-10-01
THE BAGGING QUESTION
Attempt of Some of the BUYERS - p
fog the Matter--The Case
Clearly Stated.
New ORLEANS, Sept. q, 80

NSSP111 ION
the value of cotton to misrepresent w.
results that will follow the epforoo
ment of the resolution adopted at II.
convention of the cotton excbanaoo
here and to befog and bewilder e"
farmers still further as regards tbo
merits and dement's of the probosoS
and existing rules governing the tara
question.
From the very fact that the opposi
ton to the sale of cotton by net weicbt
is stroL gest on the part of buyers and
exporters the farmer naturally sns
poets that the proverbial Ethlopian !.
concealed in some part of this particn
lar woodpile. 1t does seem stranoa
that cotton buyers should object 81
strenuously to having to pay for
twenty-four pounds less weight on
every bale of jute covered cotton than
they are being charged for today.
AS far as is sknown cotton BUYERS
are not generally SO philanthropic as
to refuse an allowance of twenty,four
pounds per bale for any sentimental
reasons, and it is perfectly certain
that they understand their own inter.
ests thoroughly, so that it may be
taken for granted that they see their
way to making more money under the
present system of tare than under the
twenty four-pound and sixteen pound
rule.
Every one knows now that while
no deduction in weight has been made
to cover tare on cotton, a deduction
in price has been invariably, though
unwillingly, submitted to by the pro,
Queer to protect the buyer in this re.
spect, and whether the deduction be
applied to the weight or the price the
result to the producer is the same, for
a buyer with a purchasing limit of 10
cents per pound Of actual cotton pays
to-day only 10 cents, less 6 per cent
for gross cotton, or $40 cents per
pound.
A 5OO-pound bale, gross weight, at
$40 cents, will bring SAT, and 500
pounds, less 6 per cent, 40 pounds
net at 10 cents, will bring SAT.
To compare the existing 6 per cent
tare on price and the new fixed tare
of "a pounds per bale, it will be more
convenient to assume that the deduc.
ton in both cases is made from the
weight. The 6 per cent. allowance
was adopted when the average bale
of cotton weighed about 400 pounds,
and when Z yards of 2-pound jute
bagging were more generally used
than is now the case.
The six ties and seven yards of
bagging made twenty.four pounds or
6 per cent on a 4OO-pound bale. This
tare was adopted by the buyers them.
selves, and was quite satisfactory to
them then, and is still more s~atisfac.
tory to them now.
For the average weight of the bale
of cotton has increased steadily, and
last year it reached about $50 pounds,
while the percentage allowed Tor
rather appropriately for tare has re,
NAMED unchanged.
Six per cent on 500 pounds is
thirty pounds of a deduction for tare,
as against twenty-four pounds on 400
pounds. Now it is ~manifestly absurd
to suppose that 100 pounds of cotton
added to a 400 pound bale will neces.
state the use of six pounds additional
weight of bagging and ties. AS a.
matter of fact twenty-four pounds is
in excess of the average weight of
bagging and ties used on the heaviest
bales.
We have seen that a buyer with a
purchasing limit of ten cents per
pound of net cotton is enabled to buy
q bale weighing 500 pounds gross for
SAT under the existing tare rules.
Take the same purchasing limit and
the same gross weight of bale, apply
the fixed tare of twenty-four pounds,
and we find that the producer gets
| $47.6O for the same bale of cotton
that now brings him SAT, without the
purchaser raising his price per pound
or being called on to pay for cotton
that he does not get.
Consequently under the existing
usages, the producer loses 6 per cent,
on every pound of cotton over 4Ov
pounds that he puts into a bale ana
at 10 cents per pound the loss IN 'nLs
way last year amounted to s00"'
L$325, 600.
| This was a nice margin Tor tne
buyers, in itself, without calcula'lnH
the additional margin they haa Oh on
bales covered with cotton bsgglng anu
other light wrappings.
And they they take full adVan.agI
of this margin, for where the ac'aI M
tare is ascertained in Liverpool 70 Ian
short of 6 per cent bagging IS adoeu
to the bale to make up the deficiency.
1t must surely be plain to u
farmers from the foregoing statement
that the existing tare Of 6 per cent Is
excessive on any bale weighing. over
400 pounds, and that if they WISH 70