The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-05-29

of the trade as whole. overgradinl
 oL cotton, however. is a different mat
 'sF sno clearly indefensible.
 xork have been made reepatedfy. ther l is practical diflicuity in determiuiul
 now Tar they are justined. partioufarii
 ,h th,s tns case of cotton certificated nor
 sioie to adetermine just what cotton hal
 been carried over In the New Yorl
 s,oek from one year to another. Conse
 tion In earlier years ca Can not be abse
 iutely proved or disproved by physica
 insnecuon. Again, after cotton il
 nIsp nhIsppsu out Tor consumption, the sam
 reau tos the owner. and there is nt means Of establishing whether or no
 the cotton has been overgraded. Tn. l preponderance Of testimony, however
 leaves no doubt that cotton has beer
 freouently and seriously overgraded by | Ine inspection bureau of the New York
 cotton Exchange Che inspection bu-
 immediately after the election of a new
 Board of Managers, this election hay ing been influenced la large measure by the acute dissatisfaction in the cot
 ton trade oyer the revision of Novem-
 oet; 1906. tfully discussed in Part D and other abuses. The present inspect.
 or Tn chief admitted that at times prioi to- his appointment samples submitted
 to the Classification committee had nol
 been drawn in accordance with ths
 rules and might not have fairly repre-
 sented the baIes from which they were l taken several members of the ex-
 change. moreover, stated that the work l of the inspection bureau had been at
 times uneven and faulty. Pronounced
 and specife couplaints of overclassi- | hcation were made by cotton mer- ] chants in. the South.
 Conclusive evidence of overclassifica- .
 ton Of .cottpn at New York prior to the
 in lS07 is furnished t,SpiSs'f by the record of
 payments from the Inspection fund. This inspection fund is derived from
 fees charged for classification. It is
 responsible to owners of cotton to in-
 demnity. them in case on reinspection
 the grade is lowered. or in case cotton which had previously been admitted to
 to remain in rsthat stock and is conse- 1 quently rejected If cotton on re- 1 classlhcation. were pronounced below
 the lowest grade teaderable on con- | cash on the basis of the current con- | tract price, allowing, of course, for grade differences. plus a. penalty and
 cotton and ssll 1t for what 1t would
 T The FscoTdd of ORIs pagnaenss aens from the in-
 spection fund on account of claims for l that cotton on reclassification was placed in a lower grade. and conse. | quently givn a lower value than that
 or sbs it Sg erSs s fsg ,Sse t6 isS payments exceeded $500 yearly. and that the average payments for this period year 1ssi-s2 eMsy' fssi, to 1 aprif s1 lsss5 nsSs such payments amounted to about sSS'ss09, and tp the. succeeding year. to SsIsSIv Ss,seT, 1ss thess payments were pn; April s iS oweSer o ss ssa fsyy yfae iacrsased sSed sharply while for the fiscal year ended AApnril ? Il 80. 1908. they amounted to almost count of absolute rejections las dis tnct frn fsorn mere reductions in grade) from 1890. ta Ia06 were less thap Sl2,- 0og. or an, average Of less than 1850 per 30. 1908, alone they Amounted, to airiost SIS .000.. These are the net payments; that fs. the actual loss to the inspection payment to the owner Of the rejected cotton the amount realized by the in spection bureau from the sale of such
 The exceedingly large payment from the inspection fund since May 1, 1906, and particularly during the year from May l, 1907, to April 30, 1908. therefore, oe0S of cotton pst that bss blssse overgraded on the original cfassifca- tion; and also that considerable cotton had been admitted to the certificated (That the payments from the 'inspec- ton fund during, the earlier years were small, op the other hand, does not iu- time was propeE Sd.'iP fhstsSd It probaSiy % aSag means that on rec1assihcation, as well as on the original classification, the tendency was to overgrade the cotton. 1S06-7 were doubtless partly due to the peculiarly low charact9r of the cotton that year, which rendered clas- Tn snrna r3ea s,,ra .ttrth,,teRS, S4S @tSo HSo pressure brought upon members of the classification committee as a result of growing dissatisfaction on the part of ceiver by the inspector in chief, such of 1907-S followed the reorGanization of the inspection bureau, which was a result of the dissatistaction noted. and were xnatnly due to the reolassification Of cotton which was first classed prior to the reorganization. s+.V
 aIn connection with these heavy pay should be. stated that most of the cot ton reflected durinR, the period rnen- tioned realized on forced sale from 3 l-2 to 3; cents or more, the average fsoSgh the eotfSa 1aquestionssSbflss @ seSK sSfs had been oversrsded. it nevertheless had a commercial value.l Inferior Cotton Deliberately Forced
 Into New York Certiflcnted Stock by
 Cotton Exchange Authorities.
 Not only has cotton really below the standard prescribed for contract de- livery been certified at New York, but such cotton was for a time virtually forced into the New York stock in pursuance of a ruling Of the Board of Appeals of the New York Cotton Ex- change. one of the highest committees Of the Exchange, and against the judg- ment of members of the. Classification Committee. This remarkable ruling. which was in effect during part of the season. of, l906.7.7 apparently came about in the following manner: The assistant inspectors make a prelimin- ary- classification of the cotton at the dock or wareh ouse; but their classffica- tion, under the rules of the New York Cotton Exchange, is not binding upon the classification committee. which may reject cotton passed by the assistant inspectors. It had happened, however, that during the interval between the original inspection at the dock and the final classification by the classification against such cotton. and warehouse receipts specifying the weight but not Akn .1 IA