Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1902-01-30
THIS YEARS COTTON CROP.
A Great Divergence of Opinion as to its
Size-Estimate OF T. Il. Price.

oi1V "a ~
New York, jar. 2s.-Thc divergcncy OF
opinion with regard to the present cotton
crop still continues. 1t has never previous
~ been so wide CT projected so fan into the
season. Never prev iously have so many
experts" been brought into public notice
by their estimates. Within two weeks we
have had Messrs. X. T. Wilson Il Co $ cs-
tlinate of Q. $4,000 and Mr.. Neills of l1,ajO,-
900. The difference between these two fig
uros is the difference between famine and
abundance between low prices and exceed
inEly high ones. The cotton never has IN
fact attained to the dignity OF an intrrna-
tional issue. The three leading proponents
of the large crop theory are EnRlishnIen,
or are resident in England who do not
hesitate to say that American predictions
of a small yield are the result of miarer-
rescntation ins pircd by self interest. On
the other hand. the American prophets of
a short crop POINT to rosponSl'ie endorse
inents at the United States government
and suggest that the attitude of thor
transatlantic friends was explained IN
verbs 1T Is raught saith the buyer. but
when he is gone then he boasteth. Ia
this situation ] have determined TO make
smother EFFORT 70 get at me truth anu me
:,sult is herewith submitted.
1t comprises the result Of inquiries adj
dressed on Jan. Sth to representative bust
ness men in every town Of oyer 800 inhabi-
tants IL the cotton producing section of
the south, including each of the 76l cotton
producing counties reported by the census
of 1SN replies of an average date of Jan
uary 18th have been received from 1866
towns in SIC counties. The &C unties heard
from produced last year 30 per cent of the
entire cotton crop and of TIE 167 counties
not heard from SIS produced last year les
than 5000 bales each.
OF the 1850 towns heard from, only Sc!
report any cotton as held there this year
or last. TIL comparison of a reported
stock at the united towns shows tina. the
STOCKS now on hand are upon the averas
81 $40 per cent of the amount on hand at
the same time last year.
The total indicated crop by States is
S,74l.O22 as against a total of sob f3 arriv-
ed at by the same method two month";
ago. and set forth in my report of NoV.
18th. This variation was equal to 1.S6 PEI
. cent of last years crop. Adding to thu
tice to allow in such complications. | os-
innate the total yield for TIE current sea
son to be 9,4i0, 84 bales.
A more detailed analysis of the present
replies will be found in printed circular
and the estimates county by county anC
also include the quantities of cotton still
correspondence between the two report.
considering the fact that an Interval u
two months has elapsed between thei'
compilation. and that the later report !!
; made up from more than twice as man,
renlios as tn former, and for the mos
Fart from different poorle, is remarklbl
l ard to mo convincing. Disregarding sue
| testimony violates all rules of evidrn'.
, aid a comparison of my two reports vii
those Of the United States government, tn
= INV bIk Jbl1llhl VI 1OIllIllt1 &c, NliE~Ni
:, Latham Alexander & Co. Mcssrs. J. u
+ Parker & Co, and Nossrs. r. r. Wilson &
=. CO.. further en. FINISHES this view Of tn
case. This comparison Is as follows:
: tiited states government derived frou
coo replies . 674, zoo.
., Latham Alex ndcr e Co. derived fron
!, 3476 replies 9.7S3, 100.
1 New York Journal of Commerce derivc.
= from sl3 replies 9~,Si,G47.
5 J. H.. Parker g. Co. derived from i'c re
: Il. r. Wilson & Co. (No. of replies IN
, kroWm 9,4i5, 704.
i Total replies p SO.
= Total crop ~. s53. $40.
t Average of above estimates 9,57o7li.
My estimate as above and previous est
mate derived from 25l0 replies 9,440,3ot.
Aggregate replies T.OS5.
Average all above estimates Q. AS, 80.
Has there ever been such a mass OF CON
I petent evidences in such substantial agrc,
: mtnt upon this subject before? The onl
basis for ~iisregarding it is the fact tn
: last years crop moved slowly, and tina
= present receipts. which obviously retec
e. the demand and do not have any cnec
: whatever upon the price CT cotton Whcr
p 1t Is produced, are heavy, but lending colo
to the large estimates On the part of tn
few individuals. As against this il ma
- be said that ;arEe receipts during Januar
+ and February in the case of a c'nall Gro
I arc by no means an exception. The in
y, sight movement in January AID Februar
lNo when we narketed $500 and pro
l duced only 100000, aggregated l,$02,@
o bales: while the movement for the sam
/ months the year previous. when the rcCoip
$ of II ,250pO bales was produced, was onl
/ l722,rD or 5000 bales less. The record q
. the crop movement month by month "a
, the past fourteen years shows no fcatur
more erratic in its relation to the size q
a the crop than the movement during IN
" months of January and February.
> Inc only general reason seems to be dc
Cuctible from it is that ii reflects the cor
= SumerS realization of the supply ard NJ
= der normal trade conditions is largo who
n the crop has been previously oVcrcstipiat
a and small when the reverse is the case,
>. THEODORE II. PRICE.