Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1892-02-11
rHE ..pEpREssEp sourH..


simply practical information in our line
(and we have made that line broad), to all
people interested. We have gone even
further by way Of seldom Offering that in
formation on our own personal authority,
preferring to do away with any possible
doubts that might arise, by quoting the
very best known authorities in almostevery
case. This course has held US back from
meddling with questions of either politics
or general finance, bat to-day and the last
time, possibly, we have decided to break
our rules and infiict upon the reader talk,
all our own, relative to the depressed"
condition of the South of late so much
paraded in the papers Of both sections of
our common country.
An article, clipped presumably from the
Memphis CTenn.) Appeal-Avalanche, has
been referred to us. Under title of ''What
Keeps the South Poor?'' that article says:
During the year 1891 the cereal crop of the
South increased in value $4,000, 600 over
the crop Of 1880, and the cotton crop in
creased about SIT, 900, 600 The New York
Stakeholder gives the figures as follows:
Total. 81, los, 97G, 200, or Sl24, 541, $50 more
than in 1890. and S497, 297, 900 more than in
1880. Corn, $40, $40, zoo bushels. as against
PCS, 757. 600 bushels in 1851. Wheat, IS, $780,
00o bushels, an increase of Il, 500 900 bushels
over 1880 Oats, &c, us, COO bushels, an in-
crease Of 1900 900 bushels. Sugar, 1885,
462.872, an increase of s.. 2S7, GU over 1890.
Tobacco, s35, 750, 4o5, an increase of s4,471,-
$751; Fruit, $40, 526. 600, an increase of S15,-
9O5,59O Hay, S23, AZ, 100, an increase of
81, 4O6, $50. Potatoes Irish), SIS, S43, 762, an
increase Of 81, 5S1, 1852. Rice, S., 4S2, GOO, an
increase OF $4,000 Other products, $751;
SIS, 4Ol With such an increase all along
the line, paralleled with an increase in man
ufactures, 1t seems wonderful that the
South is not enjoying an era of exceptional
prosperity"
The writer then goes on to state that ''the
Appeal-Avalanche has already pointed out
some of the causes, legitimate and illegiti-
mate, for the depression in the cotton-pro-
ducing states; but with marked increase
in cereals, in cotton, in manufactures, in
the introduction Of agricultural machinery,
in acreage Of cultivated lands and in live
stock, the depression is not easy to account
for. Only two explanations suggest them
selves, and these are the heavy burdens
imposed by the tariff and the pension list
Then follows long dissertation on the
hardships imposed upon Southern people
by this tariff and pension list.
The positions here taken by the Appeal
Avalanche are no doubt correct. Those
things are, undoubtedly, heavy burden on
the South, especially the pensions. We
pay our proportion of tae pension fund in
taxes, but, unlike the North, we get but
little of it back, owing to the fact that there
are comparatively few pensioners in the
Southern states.
But this not what we want TO get at. We
want to talk of this much Wanted de-
preston at present said to be peculiar to
the South. and to say at the outset that
there is nothing in it, especially. We are
entirely willing to admit that there is. a
general depression prevailing over the en-
tire country, but, at the same time, we
must be permitted to take the position that
1t is affecting the South less than the
North, all things considered.
The prevailing idea of depression rela-
tive TO agricultural products at the South
has grown out of mistake made by the
country's commercial reporters. There is
no denying that our cotton is running
little too low, but what of our other pro-
ducts2 They are not at all down, and this
impression of a depression has sprung
Il
have estimated the selling value of our
products outside of cotton. They have not
taken into consideration the fact that our
selling price of those other products is far
above that Of the same products at the
North, and so have put US down TO North
ern selling figures. Estimating upon this
kind of basis, they have made out that we
ought to be seriously affected, when in
truth we are not.
And what Of our cotton It is down, as
already intimated, but why "Overpro-
duction ~ is the answer. This may be true,
but why that overproducuon? TWAS not
result of any particular increase in acre
age to cotton, but simply the result of an
unusually favorable cotton season last year.
Another season so favorable may not come
again within the next ten years, hence all
this fretting of the gizzard about overpro-
duction and the need of reduction in acre
age to prevent a repetition Of the existing
state of affairs, is simply doubled and
twisted nonsense.
If you are sick over this much hearalded
depression of the South" look little to
history for your remedy. Twenty-Five
years ago we began business at the very
bottom. We had nothing to start on. To-
day we are on a level with those regions
which were not swept over by a war, and
which, in not few cases, were actually
benefited by the civil conflict Don't this
look ike we had been forging uheadl 1t
was all the work of our own hands in re-
Spouse to results growing cut of our sec
tons favorable natural conditions, that
brought us up. Nobody helped US to build
up, but we got up all the same, and now
they come and report through their North
ern agencies that all parts of the country
are prosperous save the South, which is
rather depressed on account of overproduc-
tion, etc. If our products sold as low, out
side of cotton, as 90 similar products at the
North, then there might be soma reason
for stating that we were depressed, but
they do not, and hence we are solid.
The truth of the matter is just this: Our