The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1904-04-13

bic for southern farmers to plant this
year for l. nUO 900 bale cotton crop.
AS | see it, the advice is dangerous
and the reasoning full Of errors. beg
your permission to explain why be-
licvc 80.
First, last and always, except for
temporary furrics, the price Of cotton
is fixed by the relation Of supply and
demand. Bull campaigns and bear
movements can never be successful
to serious extent except when they
arc directed with strict regard to the
size Of the crop and the amount Of the
staple which the world requires.
Within certain limits the South has
monopoly Of cotton productions: just
as the Standard Oil Company has of
kerosene, except that the monopoly
in cotton is a natural one, and that in
oil is artificial What it costs to pro-
duce q gallon Of oil need not effect
the price Of that gallon in the market
at all so long as the Standard Oil
Company controls the output. The
cost Of producing pound OF cotton
need not affect the price in the least,
so long as any reasonable control is
kept over the output. The means by
which the Rockefeller company has
grown famously rich has been that of
keeping the supply within the limits
where it would not depress the price,
and at the same time improving the
methods of production 80 as to lessen
the cost to the company. Now, the
Standard Oil company has resorted to
ignobie methods to establish and keep
its monopoly; for that monopoly was
by nature an artificial and unnatural
one. But in cotton, the American
Cotton Belt has a natural monopoly,
and to take advantage Of it no trick
cry or foul work Of any sort is needed;
but only plain, common sense, fore
sight and self control. The only
thing needed is for the southern peo-
pie to resist the temptation to plant
too much cotton. If they refrain
from spelling their market, the out
side world may be trusted to bid prices
up and wealth will steadily pour into
tie South.
But if the South produces too much
cotton, the whole outside world will
be quick to shove down the price Of
the staple again to the level which
brings bankruptcy, if not starva
ton, in the South. 1t is only by
exercising sclf-restraint that the cot
ton producers can guarantee their own
prosperity and that of the South as q
whole.
You say plant for $4,000, 900 bales.
What is the use Of it? The world
may be able able to consume that
quantity Of American cotton, but it
will surely not pay more than 5 or z
cents for it; whereas it will pay IL or
IS cents for 0,O0O,O 600 bale crop; and
the cotton belt will make the differ
ence in clear profit, earning twice as
-p,,eat al income from q smaller amount
Of labor.
Is there any possible valid reason
why the cotton planters should de-
liberately spoil their market and sell
their product for more than it costs to
make it?
Is the South under obligations for
beneiactions in the past? Do Asia
and Europe sell Us tea and spices
and silks and woolens and linen cheap
er than they must? Does the North
give us low prices on machinery and
all the sundry supplies, out Of pure
goodness of heart? Has the Ameri-
can government befriended the South
in the matter Of the tariff and the
pensions and such things? Has the
cotton belt waxed plutocratic by ex-
torting unfair prices for it's staple,
wringing honest, hard-earneG dollars
from the poor suffering outside world ?
The people of the South do not realize
how immensely wrong affirmative an.
swers to these questions would be.
In comparison with England, France
or Holland, Massachusetts,, New York
or Wisconsin, the cotton belt is
wretchedly poverty stricken, and
mainly because the farmers have too
often yielded to the temptation to
plant as many acres as possible in cot.
ton.
In the modern world of competition
every country and every section must
husband its resources and make the
best of it's advantages, or else suffer
the consequences of poverty and de-
nradafinn Tan nn fmoluo x,aa~a a.e