The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-01-30
Grand total :. 9,229,111
ESTIMATE OF JANUARY 25, 1902.

ESTIMATE OF JANUARY 20, lJ0I.
Alabama-11s replies from rs towns in
SO counties, indicate yield 1924 ,76S.
Arkansas--152 replies from 90 towns in
54 counties, indicate yield 64S.567.
Georgia-2i9 replies from lac towns in
102 counties, indicate yield 1,253,013.
Indian Territory-46 replies from 36
towns in counties, indicate yield 24S,943
Louisiana-7o replies from 81 towns in
"a counties, indicate yield 734.147.
Mississippi-17l replies from 100 towns
in so counties, indicate yield 1.1OS,061.
North Carolina-179 replies from 1913
towns in Sc counties. indicate yield
36S, 1855.
Oklahoma Territory-3z replies from 20
towns in II counties, indicate yield 106,
272.
South Carolina-172 replies from 81
towns in 80 counties, indicate yield
$50, 191.
Tennessee-63 replies from "A towns in
81 counties, indicate yield 17S,129.
Texas--445 replies from 2S3 towns in
1870 counties indicate yield 2,337,762.
Florida-Not reported assume yield
II $3.50.
Missouri--Not reported assume, yield
24.S1s.
Totals--Reples 1857 from 1860 towns
in SIC counties, indicate yield S,741 ,022
Add per cent--699, 2S2 bales.
Final total-1,697 replies from 1000
towns in $40 counties, indicate yield
$40 304 bales.
Quantity in hands of planters: Ala
bama, 74,061; Arkansas, 50,S51; Georgia,
$4,000; Indian Territory, 10000; Louisi-
Carolina, 1881; Oklahoma Territory.
1924; South Carolina, 57,114; Tennessee,
1913; Texas, 1905 Florida, 1887; Mis-
souri,, 1885. Total, 696,2O3.
A more detailed analysis of the pres
ent replies and the estimates county by
county, will be mailed to my correspond
ents and will include also the quantity
of cotton still in the hands of the plant
ers which averages per cent, and equals
$500 bales. The correspondence be-
tween the two reports considering the
fact that an interval of two months has
elapsed between their compilation, and
that the latter report is made up, from
more than twice as many replies as the
former and for the most part from diff
ferent people, is remarkable and to me.
convincing. Disregard Of such testimony
violates all rules of evidence, and a
comparison Of my two reports with these
of the United States Government. the
New York Journal of Commerce, Messrs.
Latham. Alexander & Co., Messrs. j. H.
Parker & Co., Messrs. r. r. Wilson &
Co., further emphasizes this view of the
case. This comparison Is as follows
At zero Z. S. Government, derived
from 10000 replies 1874 600
Latham, Alexander & Co. derived from g.
476 replies. 9,733,0Oo.
New York Journal of Commerce, de-
rived from Sl3 replies, 9,394,647.
j. II. Parker & Co, derived from 40
replies, 9,605,619.
r. T. Wilson & Co., (No. of replies un-
known), 9.445704.
Averages of above estimate, 9,570,714;t
my estimate as above and previous esti-
mate, 9.440,S04. Aggregate replies, a.
GS5.
Average all above estimates, 9,54S,979.
Has there ever been such a mass of
competent evidence in such substantial
agreement upon this subject before? The
only basis for diScrediting it is the fact
that last years crop moved slowly. and
that present receipts, which obviously re-
fleet the demand and do not have any eff
feet whatever upon the price Of cotton
where it is produced, are heavy, thus
lending color to the large estimates on
the part Of a few individuals. As against
this ii may be said that large receipts
during January and February, in the
case of a small crop are by no means an
exception The insight movement in jan
uary and February, 1900. when we mar
keted $4,000 and produced only $780,
coo aggregated 100000 bales. while the
movement for the same months the year
previous, when the record crop of H. $780,