Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-01-03
Projection IN Another Form.

planters of Virginia raised 30 much 10
baccc that they we're required to burn 90
much of IT every year IS did not como ny
70 the recognized standard of excellence
or exceeded tho quantity which the plant
er was allowed TO produce. We suppose
that one or two counties now raise o.
much tobacco rs tho whole State. OF
rather colony. Of Virginia then raised
yet we no longer rely upon such METHODS
for reducing production as did our fathers
of those days. We have grown wiser. II is
TO be hoped. Nevertheless. the theory
upon which the Virginia tobacco planters
of two centuries ago acted still holds us
place in the minds Of Inen, ~ was EVIL
dcnced by recent telegram IN tue
DrpATcH stating that the Augusta GA. Ex-
cnange had called convention OF ell the
persons concerned IN Georgia, the Caro-
linas, and the other cotton States to CO
operate with and assist the planters and
Alliance men in formulating some.ehectlve
plan TO curtail the cotton acreage.
In other words, the production OF cotton
is an American OF southern Infant indus
try" that needs to be protected. 1t Is
true IL is not proposed TO resort to law IN
order to secure the objects contemplated
by the Augusta Exchange; but II the
scheme is a defensible one. tho best thing
its promoters can do is to CAL in the aid oil
the General Government. and make 1t un-
lawful for any planter to raise more TO-
bacco than he is entitled to raise under
the plan Of apportioning production,
which is to be adopted by the con-
vention contemplated by the Augusta
Exchange.
IL 1t be said that the General Gov
eminent has no power to pass such
law, we reply that no more has II the
power TO levy tariff for the protection Of
American industries. The leading oppo
nents of a protective tariff hold that nc
power to pass tariff for protection re
sides in Congress. Even Mr.. RANDALL
held that Congress had no right to lay
tariff intended solely for protection. lii
held. however-very inconsistently, Il
seems to us-that customs duties nigh
be levied with an eye TO protection, or, a.
tho phrase is. with incidental protection
in view. The anti-protectionists ever
quote Justice Of the Supreme Court o
the United States "a having expressed th'
opinlon that Congress has nopower to levy
a protective tariff. So If the scheme o
the Augusta Exchange is good one III
promoters will have as much right to rely
upon congressional assistance in carrying
it out, as the protectionists have to rely
upon congressional aid in carrying Out
| their schemes.
Why shall not the tobacco-growers o
the country follow the example or thu
cotton-growers? The prices they now Oh
tain for their tobacco are ridculously low
The price OF wheat 10 also so low that i
does not pay the farmer to grow 1T. W.
are not sure but corn is alsoso low that ~
production costs more than the corn sell
tor. Why shall not all these industries
demand protection, or. in other words. re
duced acreage?
And, by the way, what is it that the
Standard Oil Company is charged Will
that IS not involved in the recommends
ton of the Augusta Exchange? Or th'
Western Union Telegraph Company! j
it not allowable to reduce by agreement
the annual production Quantity Of oilif
| il allowable to reduce by agreement tn
acreage Quantity of cotton, or tobacco, o
wheat, or corn, or Irish potatoes?
One more question: What is TO becom
of the men and money that are now en-
gagged or used in raising cotton? W.
shall probably be told that the cotton
planters would make more money b,
raising less cotton and devoting more labo
and land to the production of corn ant
other things they need for home consump
ton. True enough. But what IN tina
| case is 70 become the northwestern farm
ers who raise nothing but wheat, or whea
and corn? What of the planters of Vir
gina. Kentucky. Illinois, &C., &c. who
raise nothing to sell but tobacco?
We concede that the subject is involve'
in many difficulties; but we have no doub
upon one point-namely, that it will not b
possible TO reduce the production or acre
age of cotton by mere agreement entere'
into by convention of leading planters
The small planters will not 60 nor b
asked OF expected to go to such conven
ton; and they will not consider them
selves bound by its action.
Finally, the railroad companies will, W
fear. make bad use of the recommends
ton Of the Augusta Exchange. They ma,
even contend that they have az nue.
right to reduce the competition with thei
roads as the cotton planters have to re
duce the acreage OF cotton. We thin
we could head of the railroads b
arguing that railroad companies are ma
tural monopolies; but as to agriculture
products other than cotton it might b
easy TO show that they are rs much en-
titled to Government protection, or pre-
lection by agreement, as King Cotton.