AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER PRODUCTS CONSUMED BY THE GLENHAM COMPANY, PER YEAR.

Having already attempted to show the dependence which subsists between the agricultural and manufacturing interests in connection with the manufacture of cotton goods, it may not be amiss to exhibit the actual amount of agricultural capital, which appears from the preceding statement to be brought into requisition by the woollen manufacture :1. To produce 173,000 lbs. of wool, would require the fleeces of 66,000 sheep; which, if valued at $2 per head, would amount to.......... 2. Allowing three sheep to an acre, the quantity of land necessary to sustain them would be 22,000 acres; giving a sum total, at $50 per acre, of...... 3. If we estimate the probable amount of beef, pork, flour, butter, milk, eggs, cheese, &c., consumed per week by the operatives, and those immediately dependent on them, at $200, we shall find that these articles alone bring into requisition no less than 2,600 acres of land, valued at $70 per

acre,.....

4. The investment of agricultural capital required to furnish teazles, firewood, coal, &c., would amount to....

$132,000

1,232,000

182,000

58,000

Total agricultural capital,..........

$1,604,000

ROCKY GLENN COTTON FACTORY.

The Rocky Glenn Manufacturing Company commenced erecting their factory in 1836, but suspended operations for a time in 1837, and proceeded to complete in 1838. In 1840, the original structure, which was 150 feet by 50, was destroyed by fire, but rebuilt the ensuing year. This establishment runs about 6,000 spindles, which give employment to 100 operatives. The amount of cotton consumed per year, may be estimated at 208,000 lbs., yielding 1,144,000 yards of printing cloths, valued at $71,500.

HIGHLAND MILLS.

The Highland Mills, located at the mouth of Fishkill Creek, consist of two buildings, which were erected in 1840 by the late Robert T. Byrnes, one of which is now occupied by Messrs. Servoss and Pine, and the other by Messrs. Crosby and Brown, for the manufacture of cotton yarns. Although but a short time has elapsed since the conversion of these mills to manufacturing purposes, the enterprise of the present proprietors has been rewarded by unexpected success. They furnish employment to about 100 hands, and run about 4,000 spindles; consuming, on an average, about 1,000 bales of cotton per annum, and manufacturing 300,000 lbs. of yarn. About a mile farther north, Messrs. Rankin and Freeland are erecting

a cotton factory with 4,000 spindles, which is expected to go into operation the ensuing spring. We understand they have extensive waterpower to let.

Articles manufactured consist of Canton Flannels, Mariners' Stripes, Fustians, &c. (†) Cotton Machinery and Steam-Engines. (1) Broadcloths. (§) Printing cloths. (I) Cotton yarns.

Art. VI.-PROFITS OF MANUFACTURING AND COTTON-GROWING.*

PROFITS OF MANUFACTURERS AND COTTON-GROWERS COMPARED.

MR. WALKER says, "The profit of capital invested in manufactures, is augmented by the protective tariff," meaning that of 1842. This is doubtless true. But he maintains that it was done at the expense of the community, of laborers, and of the poor. He has applied to the tariff of 1842 the epithets "unjust," "unequal," "exorbitant," "oppressive," meaning that the manufacturers had all the benefit, and other classes, especially the poor, all the wrong.

So serious an allegation as this, involving so important a question, and emanating from such a quarter, should have been substantiated. Assertion is at least as good on one side as the other, and when, in replication, it happens to correspond with known facts, it is simply a reference to the most valid evidence-is evidence. It will not be denied that more capital has been sunk, entirely and forever lost to the original stockholders, in starting manufactories in the United States, than in any other business whatsoever. Nearly all that was thus invested during the war of 1812, and under the tariff of 1816, down to 1824, was sacrificed; and the

*This article is from the manuscript of Mr. Calvin Colton's work, now in press, on the "Rights of Labor." It forms a part of the eleventh chapter, which is devoted to a consideration of Mr. Secretary Walker's Report of December, 1845. It seems almost unnecessary to say in this place that the Editor of the Merchants' Magazine does not hold himself responsible for the views contained in any article published under the name of the author. By this, he would not be considered as either assenting or dissenting from the positions of the writer of the present article.

amount was very great. Hundreds, not to say thousands of families, who were rich before their all was thus hazarded here, were forever ruined by these misfortunes. It is not less true that, in the history of manufacturing in the United States, down to this time, frequent failures, some for great amounts, have been constantly taking place. On these ruins, others following, and taking the same establishments, at a large discount on the cost-50 or 75 per cent, sometimes more, sometimes less-have, for a season, been able to make large dividends, not on the first cost, but on the last. What was their good luck, had been the ruin of others. In the same manner, handsome profits have sometimes been realized by the first establishments in a new business, till other capital, waiting for employment, rushed into it, and reduced the profits to an unsatisfactory level, as is generally the result in such cases, till one reaction after another brings it to a moderate and fair business-all for the benefit of labor, as before shown.

The Hon. Mr. Evans, of Maine, whose scrupulosity and accuracy of statement in such matters, are not questioned by his opponents in the Senate of the United States, or elsewhere-much less are his statements often disturbed-replied to Mr. M'Duffie, of South Carolina, on this point, in a speech delivered January 23d, 1844. His conclusion was: "I venture to affirm that the profits of capital invested in cotton manufactures, [these are the most profitable,] from the commencement to this time, have not averaged 6 per cent." Mr. M'Duffie asked, "What are they now?" "I can. not certainly inform the Senator," said Mr. Evans; "but I am assured that, altogether, they will not average 12 per cent." It has been since proved that they did not average so much.

The Lowell factories have, undoubtedly, done better than the average of cotton mills in the country. The Hon. Nathan Appleton states that, of the nine companies there, five made no dividend during the year 1842, and that the average of the dividends of all the Lowell companies, for the years 1842, 1843, 1844, and 1845, or the nett profits, was 10 per cent per annum. These statements are, of course, open to verification; and if they could be proved incorrect, it would have been done, as there was no want of disposition.

"I am very sure," said Mr. Evans, "that in other branches of manufacture much less [profit] still has been derived. How is it with the woollens? The profits there, we know, have been very low; great losses have been sustained; and the stock has been, generally, far under par. In the iron business, the senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Buchanan,] has told us that many of the furnaces have ceased to operate.. With plain and conclusive facts like these," said Mr. Evans, "with what justice or propriety can the act of 1842 be stigmatised as an act to legalize plunder and oppression, [so Mr. M'Duffie called it,] or the policy, as a policy to enrich the manufacturer and capitalist at the expense of the laborer? These are charges, sir, easily made; but they are not sustained, and cannot be sustained by any proof drawn from experience, or the practical operation of the system."

But what are the profits of the cotton-growers? In Mr. Clay's reply to General Hayne, in February, 1-32, he said:

"The cotton-planters of the Valley of the Mississippi, with whom I am acquainted, generally expend about one-third of their income in the support of their families and plantations. On this subject, I hold in my hand a statement from a friend of mine, of great accuracy, and a member of the Senate. According to this statement, in a crop of $10,000, the expenses may fluctuate between $2,800

and $3,200." Again: "If cotton-planting is less profitable than it was, that is the result of increased production. But I believe it to be still the most profitable investment of capital of any branch of business in the United States; and if a committee were raised with power to send for persons and papers, I take it upon myself to say, that such would be the result of the inquiry. In Kentucky, I know many individuals who have their cotton plantations below, and retain their residence in that State, where they remain during the sickly season; and they are all, I believe, without exception, doing well. Others, tempted by their success, are constantly engaging in the business, while scarcely any come from the cotton region to engage in Western agriculture. A friend now in my eye, a member of this body, upon a capital of less than $70,000 invested in a plantation and slaves, made, the year before last, $16,000. A member of the other House, I understand, who, without removing himself, sent some of his slaves to Mississippi, made, last year, about 20 per cent. Two friends of mine, in the latter State, whose annual income is from $30,000 to $60,000, being desirous to curtail their business, have offered [cotton] estates for sale, which they are ready to show, by regular vouchers of receipts and disbursements, yield 18 per cent per annum. One of my most opulent acquaintances, in the county adjoining that in which I reside, having married in Georgia, has derived a large portion of his wealth from a cotton estate there situated."

So far as this evidence goes--and it is large and comprehensive-it proves a great deal; proves what agrees with common report and observation, viz that cotton-planting has been one of the most lucrative, money-making pursuits in the United States; that fortunes have been made quick and easy by it; that it has been uniformly profitable; that vast estates have been amassed in this calling; that men have grown so suddenly and greatly rich as to be satisfied, and willing to sell out when the business was worth 18 per cent; that it is a business which is not liable to fluctuation, and never fails; that the average profit can hardly be less than 20 per cent on the capital invested, when it has, probably a long time and extensively, been very much better than that; that, if prices have fallen from the enormous profits of former years, it has been owing to the natu ral tendency of capital where so much money could be made, resulting in over-production; and that the business is still one of the best in the whole country. All but the last of these statements are verified by Mr. Clay's evidence; and for the last, to wit, that this business is still the best, it is now proposed to introduce a witness whose evidence, considering the quarter from which it comes, as well as for its forcible and convincing character, will, perhaps, be somewhat surprising.

In 1844, Leavitt, Trow & Co., New York, published a remarkable book, pp. 304, entitled "NOTES ON POLITICAL ECONOMY, AS APPLICABLE TO THE UNITED STATES, BY A SOUTHERN PLANTER." Amongst the many remarkable things contained in it, (it was written by a master hand,) are the following:

"Let us now calculate what cotton can be grown for when prices get down to a mere support for master and slave. With the proper economy, by the owner living on his place, deriving his household and table expenses from it, and clothing and feeding his own slaves, his annual expenses, consisting of salt, iron, medicine, taxes, wrapping for his cotton, and overseer's wages, do not exceed 2 cents a pound on the product or crop. All over that is a profit in their sense, that is, over and above annual expenses. I will give the details to make this clear. A plantation of fifty hands, makes the average of seven bales to the hand, weighing four hundred and fifty pounds. This is three hundred and fifty bales. Suppose two cents for expenses. This amounts to $3,150 on the crop. This crop, say, sells for four cents a pound, nett, and, clear of charges for transportation, insurance,

and commission for selling, leaves $3,150 profit for the luxuries of the owner, who gets his necessaries out of the plantation by living on it. This is a very pretty sum; and half of it would be ample for him, which would reduce cotton to three cents. As to insurance, unfortunately, the slaves not only insure themselves, but give a large increase, which grows up with the owner's children, and furnishes them with outfits by the time they need them. Now, I will go into a calculation to show that two cents a pound cover the annual expenses. Here follow the items, taking a plantation of fifty hands, as a basis. For overseer, $500; for salt, $20; iron, $30; medicines, $20; doctor's bill, $100, for you can contract by the year, and it is often done, at $2 a head; bagging and rope to wrap it, at 12 cents for the one, and 5 cents for the other, amounts to $300; taxes, $100; sundry small things $100; all told. The writer speaks from experience, for he is a planter of cotton, and owns slaves. All this amounts to $1,170, much below the allowance of two cents a pound, amounting, as we have seen, to $3,150. I only wish to show that we can grow cotton for 3 cents a pound, and have a liv ing profit. *** The cotton culture, then, is sure to go on in this country, at any price, from three cents up, that the market warrants, and with increased energies. These facts warrant us in asserting, which we do broadly and unqualifiedly, that we can grow cotton cheaper than any other people on earth, not even excepting the Hindoos. The consequence of this will be, that we will take the market of the world, and keep it supplied with cotton. *** I am not speaking hypotheti cally, when I say the United States can grow all the cotton wanted-have slaves and land enough to do it, and even overdo it. [This was written before there was any serious expectation of the annexation of Texas.] This country can raise 3,000,000 of bales, when that much is wanted, and then keep ahead of the consumption far enough to prevent any advance in the price. *** If we keep cotton down, not to its minimum price, but to five or six cents, it will cease to come around the Cape of Cood Hope, and the United States will have the market of the world, just as certainly as at three cents. *** England cannot decline taking our cotton, because it is cheapest, and because she has built up her manufactories on the minimum price of the raw material, and buys it wherever cheapest, and has conformed all prices of labor and goods to that principle. She has, in France and Germany as well as in us, rivals to her cotton manufactories, and such skilful rivals, too, that she dare not pay more for the raw material than they do. If she were to pay two cents a pound more for cotton than we do, or than the continent of Europe does, she would lose her hold on the cotton manufacture, and her opponents would take her markets. The half-penny a pound duty now levied in England will have to give way to insure her success. [This duty was taken off in 1845, the next year after this remarkable prediction was uttered.] ***According to the opinions of our most deserving and most skilful commission merchants and factors, our own [American] spinners are now worth fully two cents a pound to the cotton market, each and every year, by the competition they create with the Europeans. *** Fears have been expressed that, should we get under way by the stimulus of a protecting tariff, we would not only pass the dead point, but go ahead beyond our own consumption, so as to aim at supplying the whole world with manufactures. Such arguments cut like two-edged swords, and show how much might be done under protection."

The above extracts are a little more comprehensive than what is strictly pertinent to the point of the comparative profits of manufacturing and cotton-growing. Nevertheless, they exhibit some practical suggestions of great importance relative to the subject. One of them is a maximum price of cotton, five to six cents, that will be best for the country, though not, perhaps, for individual growers, except as it might prove to be their interest thus to command the market of all the world. It is clear that the prices cannot be kept up as high as they have been, so long as the business is so profitable, and so attractive to capital. It may, therefore, be better for each, as it would be better for the aggregate interest, that prices