Year: 1868

| The Nation has an editorial upon
the subject indicated above, In which
u Is assumed and attempted To l,e
proved that the effect the OF bountifuI
harvest OF all the various products OF
tue earth, Will be disastrous to the
general prosperity Of the country.
lne me OF argument by which the
proposition Is sought 20 be established
Is This. The writer takes the single
staple, cotton, and argues that an
abundant crop VIII lower the price.
A fall IN the price will make BUYERS
cautious about buying from the hope
or Tear that tho price may fall still
more. This will precipitata the price
still more. Manufacturers will anti
elpate fall OF cotton goods and eur
TAIL their operations. This will re-
duce the means of planterso of cotton.
anu aii mhnufacturers, operatives and
dealers In cotton for purchasing other
things, aud so will produce general
stagnation In business to the injury
OF all. Ii the chcapness of one stapie
commodity through abundance la.
this effect upon NIL others, much
more must the cheapening of MI,
commodities through the same influ-
ence, have mutual Influence u,,on
each other, aud intensity the stagna-
ton and consequent disaster to the
prosperity of ali classes Of proaucers,
THIS seems to be the upshot Of the
Natioa's argument.


We have not space 10 examine I'm
detail the suundness of either tile
premises or conclusions contained I'm
this remarkable article, but can do
little more than express our surprise
that paper SO generally sound ON
questions of political economy should
have put forth such theory. In the
lirst placa IL Is not true that "A DECLINE
In cotton caused by a large crop will.
OF itself, check either the purchase or
the manufacture of the article. There
VIII be u little quivering I'm the mar
ket until the price has become settled
to the additional quantity, aud then
the manufacture aud consumption of
the article will go on as before with
the additional demand that aIways
attends the chcapening of n stapi.
commodity. In normal state of
trade and finance, this is the only
disturbance conceivable from a boun-
tiful crop OF cotton or OF ANYTHING
else, aud this disturbance can only be
slight and temporary, and viii be
more than couutrrbnlanced by the
subsequent advantages of cheaper
living. But in the present STAGE of
trade and finance, with everything ih
an abnormal condition and with
statesmen disposed to make every
thing as artificial as possible. aud
thinking all the while that they are
doing a fine thing, every man en-
gagged In extensive business feels
much AS the British officer did when
sitting with Putnam on a KEY of
onions, supposing IL to be powder.
and with rather more reason, and
tney are ready to take fright ut every
little shock In either, from whatever
cause 10 may proceed, and apprehstid
that an earthquake Is upon them.


But the bountiful crops are not to
blame for that.


So much from the argument drawn
from an abundant crop of one partic-
ular staple. That the general cheap-
ening OF all commodities from gene.
raj abundance, will, or can prove dis
astrous to the prosperity of the coun-
ty1n any other. way than by iuduc-
ing impovidence for the future
which one years abundance Is not
likely to do) seems to us preposterous.
We might Us well affirm that the
more man has to eat the more likely
lie viii be to starve. The writer nd-
mits that his theory Is ~ paradox in
political economy, hut remarks that
the science Is fun of paradoxes. But
the science presents no such paradox
as this Western Farmer.