The county record. [volume] (Kingstree, S.C.) 1885-1975, 1914-08-06

have read, your editorial head
ed, Cotton Smith, and, because l
am not entirely convinced, l beg to
tell you what think about the
matter, with the request that you
print my letter.
1t is my opinion that the price of
cotton is primarily controlled by the
laws of supply and demand. In
reaching this conclusion, have con-
sidered the facts:
(). That the worlds consump-
ton of cotton is increasing more
rapidly than its production of cot
ton. That this is true is seen from
the fact that the actual population
of the world is increasing, and from
the fact that outside of the South
agricultural experts are constantly
making experiments to find other
cotton growing countries, and large
portions of Egypt and India have
been put under cultivation for the
growth of cotton.
(2). Reports of bad crops raise
the price of cotton for future, as
well as immediate, delivery. When
it was reported earlier this year that
Texas was two million bales short.
and other parts Of the South were
suffering, the price of futures went
dp. On the other hand, reports of
bumper crops lower the price of
cotton.
1t appears to me that the. only
way a man could raise the price of
cotton would be to increase the de-
mand. or withhold or cut down the
supply. l have not heard of Mr.
Smiths claiming to have done either
of these. Does it not seem to you
that the great crop of 1911, which
choked the market for several
months, was responsible for the low
price which cotton brought that
fall? This low price caused a de-
crease in acreage for the next year,
and a smaller crop, which therefore
brought more money per pound.
The world consumed more cotton
last year than it did in 1912, and,
therefore, the demand was greater,
SO the price did not fall and will not
fall until we get supply too great
for the demand.
1t is plain common sense that if,
for some cause, we should produce
only half of an average crop of cot
ton, the price would be much great
er per pound. and if we should pro-
duce twice an average crop, the
price would be much less per pound.
In the same way, it would be true
if the consumption of cotton was
doubled or halved.
Cotton is the backbone Of our
country, and l am glad that Senator
Smith realizes it; but it appears to
me that it is taxing the credulity of
the South Carolina farmer to try to
make him think that E D Smith has
power to suspend or alter the canons
of political economy, or to vary the
law of supply and demand. If you
think that the farmer does not know
anything of political economy, then
you are trying to play on his
ignorance.
With kindest personal regards,
Yours very truly,
A S HARDY.
Sumter, July 21.
With pleasure we print the fore
going Illuminating disquisition from
one who has obviously studied the
cause and effect of the cotton prob
lem more thoroughly than we have.
or ever hope to do.
In the editorial article referred to
we distinctly disclaimed the asser-
ton that Senator Smith had raised
the price of cotton, or, in fact, that
he even had anything to do with it,
for we do not know.
Yet the fact remains that Smith
promised the farmers if they sent
him to the United States Senate the
price of cotton would be raised; ne
was sent to the Senate and the price
of cotton has been raised; so, qns
v0ulez yOus encOrey Senator Smith
may have had no more to do with it
than you or l, Mr. Hardy: but, if it
be a mere coincidence, it is a mighty
lucky one for Senator Smith, for
facts: are stubborn things.-Ed'tor
C0untV Record.