The Greenville times. [volume] (Greenville, Miss.) 1868-1917, 1889-09-21
The @rzas ..rARE" QUESTION.

Capt j. w. Fulmer, who was chair
man Of the Memphis delegation to the
convention of cotton men in New Or
leans, fails to see any advantages in
the use of cotton bsgging in prefer
enee to jate.
lie puts forward an ingenious OBJ
lection, in saying that the use of cotton
bagging viii not increase the consump-
tiOn of cotton by 100000 bales, because
the cotton bagging depreciates in value
only 10 per cent in its use and can be
used by the manufacturers for certain
purposes the same as lint cotton. In
brief, the 100000 bales used In manu-
featuring cotton bagging viii take the
place of 100000 bales that would have
been consumed in the lint.
This suggests two points, Q) The
selling of cotton covered with cotton
gross, with only the weight of the iron
ties taken off; and (2) That if true
some s5,OO0,oO0 or s6,O00,oo0 will be
retained at home in the anufacture
of cotton bagging instead of going to
the East and to Europe. The Southern
cotton producer will thereby be bene-
fitted to that extent.
The leading objection which Capt.
Fulmer puts forth is as follows:
IL think an injustice has been done
the farmer or producer by assuming
that the price viii be advanced to
cover the tare on weight, while there
was nothing before the convention to
justify such an assumption.
again, If the entire crop of cotton
was wrapped in cotton bagging and
the sixteen pounds tare taken Off of
each bale the producer would give
away 100000 bales Of cotton annually,
or say $5,00O,000."
Of course, IL thsre is not a corre-
spending advance In the price Of cotton
Capt. Fulmer's objection is good. The
Meridian delegate to the convention
put this question to the New Orleans
cotton men in convention, but received
no satisfactory response. Certainly,
the proposition that the Southern
farmers will be called upon to give
away $5,0O0,OOO for tho sake of using
cotton bagging would be preposterous
in the extreme.
This point may be illustrated with
the prevailing prices of cotton In Liv-
erpool and New Orleans to-day which
are, Liverpool 11-l6 as 3-S; New
Orleans II 7-1e; difference Off 1916
between New Orleans and Liverpool.
The Liverpool price is for cotton
less six per cent. tare. That is, for q
bale of 500 pounds Liverpool pays
IS s.s cents per pounds for $500 less so) |
470 pounds which amounts to s6s.S6.
Divide S62.s6 by 500 and tho price Is
1857 per pound including bagging and
ties, difference In the gross and net
price of eight-tenths Of cent, making
the actual difference between New Or
leans and Liverpool ? 13 cents per
pound instead of 2-93 cents, the appar-
ent difference.
Now, to meet the change made, so
that net cotton alone will be paid for,
the New Orleans price to-day would
have to be 4 ia cents instead ofl07-16
cents per pound, in order that the pro-
ducers selling In new Orleans may |
recoup themselves in the loss Of the
tare weight which the new rule pro-
poses 10 take of.
Altogether the putting In force Of
the new rule will be attended with
some difficulties, considering the oppo-
sition of Liverpool and New York, and
unless there is an advance in the
prices paid for cotton under it, the
producer will be subjected to double
loss on the weight Of his bagging and
lies on his cotton.
The coming of the first of October
will be watched with interest, but no
matter what turn affairs take, the
planter is firm in his resolu-
lion to be paid for oil the cotton there
s In a bale, and not to patiently allow
Liverpool and New York to rob him
If what is justly his own under the
yuise of "tare.'-Meridisn News.