The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1891-09-01
No. %

would have no interest, taxes. ins11r-
ance or WarehOusing to pay; and. if
cotton went down, he would lose no
more than he would by warehOusing
his cotton. xa *
In this connection, notice clipping
IN your last issue, from the FdUhReI
Go"nty Wheel, saying if the Sub
Treasury had been in operation last
iall, the price Of cotton would not have
fallen two or three cents. [ can see no
foundation for such an inference If
holding back the cotton would raise
the price, there was enough held over
to have at least sustained the mar
ket;' certainly many times as much as
was ever held over before, and I doubt
If there would have been much more,
if the warehouse had been accessible;
for 1T Is not every man who would take
$50 from the warehouse and pay even
z per cent. interest on it, when he
could get 500 ready money from the
dealers. The fall III the price of cotton
was owing to the very large crop raised,
the panic III the money market caused
by the embarrassment of the second
largest financial house in the world,
and the loss of the South American
market, by the unsettled state of Brazil,
the bankruptcy of the Argentine Con
federacy, and the inSurrectiOn in Chill,
and no amount Of WarehOuSing would
have raised the price when there was
not a demand for the goods, nor idle
money in spectators hands to buy up
the stock. [ think more correct state
ment Of the results than that given by
the Wheel would be, that a few plant
ers who sold their cotton at the gin,
would have lost 20 per cent. on it, and
those who lost 80 per cent. would only
have lOst2 and the government would
have lost 10 per cent. on all ware
housed, besides the cost of warehOus-
ing, interest and insurance.
4th. 1t is class legislation in that
counties which do not raise $50, 900
worth of any one staple would get no
benefit @ from it. And last, for this
time) but not least, it would produce
an army of fat office holders. whom
some one has got to pay literally, for
producing nothing. And is it not pos
Si6io, not to say prOdd6ie, that some of
the strenuous advocates of the bill who
cry Sub Treasury or no Alliance, " are
looking forward toward some Of these
same fat offices?
But @. A. B. is WOfully wide of the
mark when he compares any one who
has changed their mind on the benefits
of the SubTreasury Bill since the Ocala
Convention, to the Israelites in Egypt.
If he had lost from $50 to $500 bv hold
ing his cotton over, as many have he
would not be 50 anxious for a ware
house as he might have been before
If he cannot see the point, | will send
him an old pair Of specs with one eye
gone
Yes. G. 4. r. is correct when he saws
I don't seem to know that with a
sufficient volume of currency. &c,
every pound of cotton would be used. "
[ didn't know it, and I would thank
him to inform me and many more
readers, what would be a
sufficient amount of currency, placed
within the reach of rich and poor and
alike" (wouldn't [ grab a handfuD
in the United States, to raise the price
of cotton in Liverpool two pence per
pound? For of course he knows that
over three fourths of the cotton raised
in the United States is exported, and
the price here is governed by the price
in Liverpool. Or does he think the
whole crop would be used in the United
States? If 50, what amount, &c. as
before, would induce all the people in
as much cotton as they do now Also,
will the Sub Treasury Bill place cur
rency which he has not earned within
reach of the poor man? If so, l might
be induced to change my opinion Of it.
But [ have written so much, [ will
reply to his criticism Of the land loan,
&c, next week. B. J. n.