The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1891-12-03

IL, only for bees, and then would ad
wise some isolated spot for it.
L never saw anything bite if and
plowed mules right along bv II !,
FEBRUARY and March when it wa
very green and vigorous. 1 see it i
Delng boosted" by some. L am afraiC
tne OBJECT is not to bless the country
WIN forage, but something else. i
Is a vigorous grower and have seer
liity or sixty stocks from one seed,
w. P. HANCOCK.
WHAT is THE MATTER?
10 the Agricultural Editor of the Statesman.
am very much obliged for Won,
full and explicit information abouf tha
cost of raising cotton, and have for.
warded your letter to my friends with
some remarks besides.
L agree with you that the Texas
crop this season is being marketed
under the cost Of production, and can
see but one remedy for it, that is to
raise less cotton. "
Our farmers are doing themselves
damage by increasing instead of de-.
creaslng acreage, year after year. We
camlloG expect manufacturers to paw
1uli prices when they see such surplus
Vi the stuff to draw from as thew re-
qulre it, without carrying stocks.
Cotton is like any other commodity
under ike conditions, and we have
now reached point in its production
When concerted action seems neces-
safy to save the South from bank
ruptcy.
!. Our Alliance friends have fine
held for operations in the fact that
something done in the way of putting
dollars in the pockets of farmers is
worth far more to the country than
electlng governors and United States
senators. CHARLES EVANS,
Austin, Tex.
COTTON is ALL RIGHT-WHAT Is THE
MATTER WITH THE FARMER?
Under the recent caption Cotton as
a Crop, in recent issue of The
STATESMAN you justly deplore the
condition of the farmer and readily
fail into the assertion that we have
reached the stage of over. production.
1t is just possible that you mean that
the cost of production and the selling
price is too close together to insure
profit to the grower and not that q
portion Of the crop has been found
useless and without q commercial
value. Such condition as alluded to
is too often used as pretext by spec
lators for lower prices and in no in
stance with justice to the producer.
Again, over-production is not capable
Of dem 'nstration so long as the mar
ket for any specified product is open
for buying and selling. To realize
crisis such as this there would have
to be q closing, in fact, of the market
against an unneeded quantity. And
this quantity would have to
remain unsold in the hands of the
producer, otherwise having passed
into the market it becomes the repre-
not of over reproduction but
more probable of the profits of specu-
Iation. 1t seems to me then cotton is
all right-what is the matter with the
farmer? DAN M. MCRAE,
Cedar Park, Tex.
The above letters refer to my views
on the present demoralized state of
the cotton market. l have been re-
luctantly forced to the conclusion that
an excess of cotton over the demand,
is the main cause of depreciation in
market price. Mr.. Evans agrees with
me; but Mr.. McRae thinks over pro-
duction has not been proved, and can
not be, till the producer raises more
than can be sold. We simply differ
as to The position of the over produc-
ton point.
According to Mr.. McRae's argu-
ment, the farmer is not producing too
much cotton as long as he can sell it
at cent, or less, per pound; regard
less of cost Of production.
contend, that the over-production
point is reached, when the supply is
so large as to reduce the value Of the
article below the legitimate cost Of
production.
The farmer raises, or should raise,
cotton for profit, as well as the pleas
urable recreation it affords; and when
he fails to get fair return for his
labor and investment by reason of a
surplus Of the commodity in the
market, / think it is clear that his loss
arises from excessive supply.
1t may be that the individual farmer
has not raised an excessive crop; in
deed he may have fallen far short of
the average and his reasonable eX-
pectations; but it is not the individual
crop that supplies the worlds demand,
but the aggregate. ms,
[ do not pretend to say that 1.-THE
worldn could not consume all and
much more than the present annual
cotton crop. Ofcourse it could, if it
could afford to buy and pay for it.
There are millions Of human beings
living without using cotton in any
form and millions more whose con-
sumption is reduced to a minimum
hardly covered by the term decency,
and very few millions that are using
all they could use. To argue that we
oo,,j4 ,,oisa too much cotton till all