The Union times. [volume] (Union, S.C.) 1894-1918, 1904-04-29

round bales. In addition, there
were 1898 bales OF sea island cot
ton. The production of cotton in
the United States last year by States
was as follows:
Alabama, 1,023,959; Arkansas.
741.236; Florida, 5S.572; Georgia,
1,329,278; Indian Territory, 312.-.
776; kansas, rs; Kentucky. 644;
Louisians, s5s,5Gs; Mississippi l..
439, ,294, Missouri, 1888; North
Carolina, 555, $50; Oklahoma, 204,,
957; South Carolina, 813, ,351; Ten.
nessee, 25o,437; Texas, 2,562,6s2;,
Virginia, 1851. 1t will sbe seen
from these figures that Virginia pro-
duced less cotton than any of the
Southern States, and that the State
producing the smallest amount Of
cotton was Kansas, with seventy-fve
bales, on increase ofihirty bales over
the crop of 1902. Texas, of course,
ranks first among the great cotton
producing States of the countsE.
Mississippi is second, Georgia third,
Alabama fourth, Louisiana fifths
South Carolina sixth, Arkansas
seventh, North Carolinc eighth, in-
dian Territory ninth, Tennessee.
tenth, Oklahoma eleventh, Florida.
twelfth, Missouri thirteenth, Virginia
fourteenth, Kentucky fifteenth; and
Kansas sixteenth. Indian Territory
has held ninth position in cottSH'
growing for four years; Oklahoma
eleventh place for five years. Ten
nessee has been tenth in the list Of
cotton growing States for four years
and Virginia persisteDtly retains
fourteenth place. South Caroliua
remains the same as in 1902. There,
is lie le change in the positionsef, ,snys
of the States, except Louisians,
which held seventh placer last year,
but went up to fifth position in 1908.
The total number of balesproddced
in each county in South Carolina
during 1908 was as follows: Abbe>
vile, 26, 1913, against q, ,OO7 in 1902;
Aiken. 2O,671, against 25,a6O in
1902; Anderson, 43,557, against
47,s27 in 1902; Bamberg, 1928
against 1892; Barnwell, 2S,992
against 30,975; Beaufort, 3,997
against 1924; Berkley, 1908
against 1882; Charleston, $500
against 1O,34O; Cherokee, 1924
against 11,0S3; Chester, 19,417
against 22,211; Chesterfield, 14,12O
against 1874; Clarendon, 22,659
against 27,921; Colleton, 9,256
against 1882; Darlington, 22,719
against 27,719; Dorchester, 1862
against S,41S; Fairfield, 1880
against 1868; Florence, 1870
against 21,174; Georgetown, 1850
against I 657: Greenvills, 27,7O4
against S2,523; Greenwood, 24,237
against 27,7e9; Hampton, 1857
against 1885; Horny, 6,1s1 against
5,314; Kershaw, 14,025 against
1888; Lancaster, 1884 against
30,151; Laurens. 32,005 against
37,155; Lee, 23,257 against 26, 1856;
Lexington, 1882 against 1887;
Marion, aa,96s against "a, 1886;
Marlboro, 37,907 against 41,144;
Newbcrry, 29,s47 against 32,64O;
Oconee, $500 against 12,s06;
Orangeburg, 47,912 against 70, ,211;
Richland, $500 against 1881;
Saluda, 16, $40 against II, ,093; Spar
tanburg. S7,453 against 1884;
Sumter, 22,o72 against 80,937.
Union, 15,4O4 against II, ,298; Will
iamsbura 20.2l5 against 21, OPT;
York. %, 106 against 30,744. Not
single county in the State shows q
gain in production over 1902, and
many Of them show extensive losses.
Orangeburg county, which is the
greatest cotton producing county in
the State, shows the heaviest falling
off from natural oausea. there heinz