Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1897-11-20
CATION PRODUCTION.

In the CeglnnlnR vi Ohe vi us culiouS
editorials, which is printed In another
column of The News, THE YoRKvILLE
ENQUIRER intimates that The News does
not know what it is talking about, and in
the end agrees with The News in its chief
contention.
Perhaps if THE ENQUIRER were aware
of the fact that the southern states have
not a. monopoly of the worlds cotton
production to the extent that they had
not many years gone by, perhaps if it
knew that other lands can produce cotton
and would increase their production If
there was a vast reduction in the south's
acreage, it might be able to see that vol
untary lessening of effort to produce cot
ton without turning their energies TO other
crops might not help the southern farm
ers. We cannot think that it would be
wise for the south's farmers, lawyers or
newspaper men to do less work than they
The remarks Of THE ENQUIRER con-
cerning the gold standard and supply and
demand, themselves sufficiently prove
that the price of cotton depends upon
supply and demand more than upon the
money standard.
However, it is fact that if this country
could be flooded with silver or paper
money, or any other kind of cheap mon
ey. the price of cotton, shoes, tobacco,
coats, hats and newspapers would be
higher. When Confederate money cir.
culated good prices prevailed and good
horse was worth SIC, 0,0OO.-Greenville
News.
We are almost tempted to give up our
effort to teach The News something as
bad job. IF our esteemed contempo-
rary is not dull of comprehension, it is
evidently too perverse to admit plain
facts. We are sure that except The News,
nobody could have understood us to rec,
ommend that farmers reduce the cotton
crop and devote their spare time to idle
ness. We only made it perfectly clear
that under existing conditions there is
more money in small crop than there
is in a large one. If the farmers gener-
ally could be induced to raise less cotton
and more of other crops, it is plain
proposition that they could not possibly
fare worse than now.
The tacetious suggestion Of The News
to the effect that The ENQUIRER is not
aware that other countries produce cotton
is not only entirely gratuitous, but unhap-
py. The production of other countries
does not detract in the least from the force
of what we have already said. For in
stance, the total crop of the entire world
last year amounted to 1O,267, 900 bales, and
sold for 1896, ,279, 1854. In 1s9O-9l the Amer
lean crop Of s,652 ,597 bales, alone sold for
$3.50, 1880, ia, and that year the total foreign
crop was 223, 900 bales more than last year.
A study of statistics back for years will
show pretty conclusively that the larger
the aggregate crop, the smaller is the total
value. While under the laws of supply
and demand we can understand how a
larger crop might reduce the average
price per bale, we cannot understand how
these laws can operate to reduce the total
value of big crop below the total value
OF small one.
The whole trouble, according to our
notion, is that there is an increase In
everything except the supply Of money,
and just in proportion as the present fix
ed amount of money is required to do
more business, its purchasing power be-
comes greater, operating to the disad-
vantage of the producing classes. We
note what The News says of "free silver"
confederate money" etc; but in view
of it's other remarks, we are not encour-
aged to continue the discussion. If our
esteemed contemporary had shown any
knowledge whatever OF cotton statistics,
then we would have had reason to pre-
sumo that it also knows something about
the financial question.