OF Aad
Ose

1836 —

SB 249
.U58
1836
Copy 1

WOODBURY’S

TABLES AND NOTES

Cultivation, MAlawtutacture, ay Forctaw Grave

OF

COTTON.

WASHINGTON:

PRINTED BY BLAIR & RIVES.

1836.

_ These tabular statements, showimg the extent of the cultivation, manufac-
ture, and export of cotton, were prepared by the Secretary of the Treasury,
under the circumstances stated in his report to the House of Representa-
tives, in answer to the call on him to lay them before that body. A large
number of them was ordered to be printed by the House ; but so many im-
portant facts upon an interesting branch of statistical research were ascer-
tained to"have been condensed in these tables, and the notes accompanying
them, as to inspire a strongly expressed wish that an edition might be pub-
lished for general circulation, independent of that printed for Congress.
This was acquiesced in by the author, and the present edition is accordingly
submitted to the public without any addition or amendment.

Ath ConarEss, [ Doc. No. 146. ] Ho. of Reps.
lst Session. Treas. Dept.

COTTOR.
CULTIVATION, MANUFACTURE AND FOREIGN TRADE OF’,

Li T TER
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,

Fables and notes on the Cultivation, Manufacture, and Foreign Trade
of Cotton.

Marca 4, 1836.

Referred to the Committee on Manufactures, and 15,000 extra copies ordered to be printed
under the direction of the Secretary of the ‘Treasury.

Treasury DeparrMent, Feb. 29, 1836.

Sir: Certain tabular statements and notes on the cultivation and manu-
facture, together with the imports and exports of cotton, are herewith sub-
mitted to the House of Representatives, in compliance with their resolution
of the 12th instant:

« Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to transmit
to this House the tables indicated in a note to his annual report, showing
the progress in the cultivation and manufacture of cotton in the United
States, and in other countries ; also, showing the comparative quantity and
value of exports and imports of cotton, and cotton manufactures, in the
United States and other countries.”

In order that the true character of these tables may be understood, and
no expectation as to their contents be formed, which an examination of
them might disappoint, a brief explanation will be given of their origin,
progress, and present state of completion.

They were not commenced till the last year; were at first very limited
in their object, and have been attended to since, only at a few brief inter-
vals of leisure, In the course of that year, while making official investt-
gations, they were begun, with a view to the collection of such general
statistical facts as might enable me to form a satisfactory opinion, upon the
extent of influence which the rapid increase of the growth and manufac-
inure of cotton in this country had exercised, and was likely to exercise
for afew ensuing years, upon our revenue from foreign importations, and
from the sales of the public lands in the southwestern States and Territories.

In the pursuit of these inquiries, the influences of the ¢rade in cotton,
whether raw or manufactured, on our exports of domestic products, on
our imports of cotton fabrics in particular, and jgenerally upon all our
Blair & Rives, printers.

2 ; [ Doc. No. 146. j
%
foreign importation, as far as dependent on the amount of otiy exporis ;
and, “in firie, its effect upon our whole foreign commerce, as well as on
many other branches of our national prosperity, became highly interesting’
portions/of the principal investigation.

That investigation was also originally confined to the culture and manu:
facture of cotton in this country since the adoption of our constitution.
But im the course of my inquiries, finding that the cultivation of cotton
here, and the extent of our exportations “of it, Were intimately connected
with. the growth and exportation as well as the manufacture of it in other
cowatries, “and that not only our foreign trade, but our foreign relations of
peace and war, would probably be hereafter much influenced by the com-
mercial connections which the growth and manufacture of cotton appeared
to have established between them and us, I endeavored, incidentally, to
collect and preserve, and af fterwards arrange, such general statistical facts:
fypon these points, during the same period, in relation to other countries,
but chiefly England and “France, as could be obtained amidst the pressure
of other business in the short time partially devoted to the investigation of
this subject.

Many of the statements in the columns from books and reports might
doubtless have been made fuller, could [have commanded greater leisure
for this object, and especially might more have been added by way of esti-
mate from a few important data embraced under several particular heads.
The whole tupic, likewise, of the domestic trade in raw cotton and its ma-
nufactures, between different portions of the same ceuntry, and especially
of the United States, might have been usefully embraced, had it come more
directly within the scope of 1 my inquiries, ‘and had time permitted. It
would throw much light on the coasting trade; communication by roads
and canals; different habits arid pursuits of the people i in different portions
of the same country, and their reciprocal dependence for certain raw and
manufactured articles, tending so strongly, as for example it does here, to
preserve frequent, constant, and friendly inteicourse, and fo cultivate and
strengthen, for both convenience and interest, the bonds of harmony and
union.

But unable to enlarge on that, my great solicitude was to obtam, in the first
place, pertinent facts, in as great a nirben as practicable, with a view to form
afterwards such estimates and inferences connected w ith the general object
originally proposed, as might throw some new light upon it. "The sources
whence most of those facts were drawn T noted down, in order to determine
afterwards the degree of reliance which should be placed on such as might
be found to appear doubtful. In the notes appended to the several tables,
the authorities for most of the facts are accordingly referred to. Where
the authorities are not given, the statements in the columns are usually the
result of my own computations, deduced from the best information at my
command.

Having proceeded far enough in the inquiries and statements to answer

the purposes originally contemplated, I formed the general estimates, deduc-
tions, and opinions, upon the influence of the growth and manufacture of
cotton m this country over its revenue, commerce, and prosperity, which
were expressed in several places in my last annual report, and which, with
some comparative staternents connected with this subject, are, on account
of their intimate connection, extracted and appended. (Marked Q.)
These tables being now called for by the House of Representatives, they

[ Doc. No. 146. } 3

are submitted without many of those details, which exist on all points, and
particularly on such as relate to the different species and localities of the
manufactures, and to the kinds of machinery employed in the several opera-
tions. These last were easily obtainable, and to some inquirers might be
very desirable. But as that minuteness did not come within the scope
of my original examinations, what I have thus hastily collected and
presented must be regarded rather as a few general facts for comparison,
and as hints or suggestions to be followed out by others who enjoy more
leisure, than as a full compilation of statistics on the subject of cotton.
Yet in their present imperfect and meagre state, under some heads, they
still contain under each, it is hoped, a few data which may prove useful,
since they bring together, in a condensed and systematic view, many
scattered details on a subject very important to the finances of the country
at this time, as well as to its future prosperity in each of the three great
branches of national industry—agriculture, commerce, and manufactures.

Any inferences or suggestions on the influence of tariils, upon the growth
or manufacture of cotton, or on the propriety of protection to manufac-
tures, or other branches of our national interests, which have been so much
agitated in former years, were studiously avoided, as not called for by the
oceasion, or the present condition of the country.

The notes contain numerous illustrations, additional explanations, and
facts, which could not be conveniently imcorporated into the tables; and
some of which are very material for deciding correctly upon the accuracy
of the figures and statements contained in the different columns,

The general arrangement of the tables and notes is such, as to present
first the facts and estimates on the growth er the crop of cotton, so far as
practicable, for a number of different years, in those countries in the world
where it is most cultivated. They exhibit next the foreign trade in raw
cotton, by giving the exports and imports of it at several periods from and
to most of the places abroad where it constitutes an article of mach com-
merce.

The third set of tables shows the amount and condition of the manutac-.
ture of cotton, and its consumption at different dates, in most of the coun-
tries where it is extensively used; and the last series shows the foreign
trade in those manufactures, during a number ef years, from and to many
of the principal places engaged in it.

A more minute explanation of the contents of each table and its notes
is given, for convenience of reference, in the schedule annexed.

With these hasty explanatory remarks,

I have the honor to be,
Very respectfully, ;
Your obedient servant,
LEVI WOODBURY,
Secretary of the Treasury.
Hon. James K. Pox,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

4 [ Doc. No, 146. ]

SCHEDULE OF THE TABLES AND NOTES.

A, B, and C, relate io the crop or growth of raw colton.

A, gives the quantity supposed to be raised in the world at a few different
periods, and in each country where it grows.

3B, gives the quantity computed to be grown, at several dates, in each of the
southern and southwestern States of this Union.

G, gives the prices of it here, and in England, for many years; the capital
and the number of persons estimated to be employed in growing it, and
the value of the whole crop here and elsewhere.

PD, 2, FF, G, H, relate to the foreign trade, or the erporis and inports of
raw cotton.

D, gives the exports from the different quarters of the world chiefly en-
gaged in that trade, at a few separate periods.

i, gives the exports from most of the important places in the United States
where it is shipped.

®, gives the exports from, and to, most of the countries, engaged extensively
in this trade.

G, gives the imports of it into England, at several dates, and the amount
from each of the most important countries raising it.

H, gives the imports into France, and whence, as well as the imports inte
a number of other places.

J, K. L, relate to the manufacture and consumption of raw cotton, rz
several countries.

J, gives the amount used and manufactured in most of the countries where
raw cotton is much worked up.

IX, gives the value of the manufactures of it in several countries, and the
amount of capital employed in them.

{,, gives tlie spindles and number of persons employed in the manufacture,
in some places, at different poriods.

M, N, O, relate io the foreign trade in cotton manufactures.

M, gives the exports of them from several countries.

N, gives the exports of them from England, and the amounts exported
thence to several enumerated places, at different periods, so as to exhibit
in the same table the imports of them into the same placcs from England.

O, gives the exports of them from several other countries, and whither.

2 1s the last of the tables, and merely presents an exhibit of the dates of
the most important changes in the growth, manufacture, and foreign
trade of cotton, within the period chiefly referred to in the other tables.

i Doc. No. 146. ] 5

INTRODUCTORY NOTES.

In the subsequent tablis the quantity of raw cotton has been computed
in pounds, and when stated in the weights of other countries by the authors
referred to, the edition (1831) of Kelly’s Cambist has been followed as a
guide about the contents of the kilogramme, maud, picul, &e. The prices
and values, when found in the denominations of foreign currencies, have
also generally been reduced to dollars and cents, computing the pound
sterling at $4 80; and the statements of all considerable quantities and
amounts have usually been made only im millions and large fractions of
millions. ‘This has been done for convenience and uniformity, and was
supposed to be suflicient, if not better, for the comparative aud genera!
purposes contemplated in the original formation of the tables.

As most persons in conversation, and most authors, speak of “bales,” or
“bags,” rather than pounds, of cotton, whether refering to the crop, the
manufacture, or the exports and imports of it, some further explanation
may be proper, to show ny the term has not been employed in the state-
ments contained in any of these tables.

It was early discovered, in the preparation of them, that many contra-
dictions and errors happened, from the uncertain quantity indicated by
different persons in the use of those terms, and which might be obviatec
by always making the statements in pounds, and giving in a note the
amount computed to be contained in bales and bags in different countries,
so that the pounds could, when desirable, be converted again readily into
bales or bags. By pursuing this course of using only the term pounds, the
great object of comparison between the quantities of cotton growh or man-
ufactured or exported at different periods, and in different countries, could
also be more clearly and quickly accomplished.

In illustration of these remarks, and to furnish the quantity usually con-
tained in each bale, bag, &c. it appears that in 1790 the bale or bag.in the
United States was computed at only 200 pounds. (See Treasury Report,
15th February, 1791.) In the Atlantic States it is now estimated often at
300 and 325 pounds, but in those on the Gulf of, Mexico, at 400 and 450
pounds. Those used at Lowell in 1831-contained, on an average, 361
pounds (Pitkin’s Statistics, page 527, note.)

At Liverpool the Sea Island bale was, a few years ago, estimated at 280
pounds, and the Upland at 320 pounds. The bales imported into France
are estimated at 300 pounds each, by Baines’s History of Cotton, page 526.
In 1824 all the bales imported into Liverpool averaged 266 pounds, and
increased yearly, till in 1832 they weighed, on an average, 319 pounds,
(McCulloch, page 441). Though on the previous page he considers from
300 to 310 pounds a fair average, and Burns, cited on same page, makes it
310 pounds in 1832. ‘The Egyptian bale contained once only 90 pounds;
the Brazilian 180 pounds; (Pitk. 485;) the West Indian 350 pounds; and
the Celombian. bale or quintal, 101 pounds. (Cyclop. of Com.) In 1882,
Burns says the average of the United States bale or bag imported into
England, was 345 pounds ; Brazilian 180 pounds; Egyptian 220 pounds;
West Indian 300 pounds; East Indian 330 pounds. (See McCulloch, 441.)
‘ "The amount of our own exports does not depend on computations from
any of these data, but on the actual weight in pounds, sworn to at the cus-
tom house.

ee ad

feo

[ Doc. No. 146. ]

By the last annual report of the Liverpool market, made in January,
1836, it appears that the bales have so altered in their quantity, that the
estimate of the present bales or bags is: for the upland 321 pounds; for
Orleans and Alabama 402 pounds; for Sea Island 322 pounds; for Brazil
173 pounds; for Egyptian 218 pounds; for East India 360 pounds; and for
West India 230 pounds. As improvements are made in pressing and
packing closer, to save something in the expense of bagging and freight,
the constant tendency has been here to increase the weight in a bale.

/

vi
/
{ Doc. No. 140. 7 7
Ne
COTTON, RAW,
Crop of cotten grown in— [1]
ety eae
ieee | a 3 \/S a |egs| &
ie ie i Zz = Ss Me ee (etn ee
ome emer aie 0) Aj) 2 eal ee Be Rea
S| Ys. | tbs | tbs | tbs. | Ths, | ibs. | Ibs. | Ibs. | Ibs. | Ibs.
Millions.|Milhons. ec Achtne Ree MilVns.|Mill’ns.'Millns.| Millions. Miln’s:
Bee =
1790) =~ 1k
1791 | 490 2 22 12 Be ria 46%; il SOr. |) 190. ses
1792) [2 3
1793 | = 5
P94. Hn) S 8 | |
1795. = 8
1796 | a 10 | | |
ig yA iia a lt | |
PIGS) |b" 15 |
1799-40.) 2 20 |
i800 | = 35 | |
i801 | 520 48 36 TO dt eae he, |. TBO 56 15
4802} 4 55 |
1803.1 60
1804 us 65
1905/|' = 70
1808; - 80
BS0F iy es 80 |
1808 | = 75 |
18097 82 | |
S40!) oF 2 85 |
1811 | 555 80 35 12 a Cts Aa esigO), t| 4446 57 iL
1812 | [3] 75 |
1813" (°: -— 15 | |
lt a page 70 |
TORS halen 100 |
eG |. 124
toe |.) 130 |
ig18 | = _ 125 | |
WOul2 ae 167 |
10. 142 160 |
1821 | 630 | 180 32 10 6) oeaOe 7b Tab teas 8
1822} 210 | |
1823 |. = 185
1824}. 215
1825 | 255
1826; 350
ee ne 270
1828, _ 325
1829, 365
1830 | x 350
1831 | 820 | 385 38 9 is | 36 | 190 | 15 35 4
1832 | a 390 :
18837 | 72a 445
1934 | 900 | 460 30 8 951 | 34 |. 185 |) 110 35 13
1835 | ,
[12] | {4] [5] fer ier [8] [9] [10] | (11)

§ [ Doc. No. 146. ]

[1.] lt wall be seen by the phraseology adopted, that the crop given against
each year is that grown, and not that brought to market in the year, and
that the year meant in the table is the calendar, and not the fiscal year.
This course has been pursued as more appropriate when applied to thie
raising of a crop; but in selling it, “the erop of 1855,” for example, is
often spoken of by others when that, which grew in 1834, is the crop
alluded to. ‘This explanation will enable all to make their comparisons
in the mode most convenient to them, and will remove some apparent con-
tradictions between certain authors.

{2.| In forming an estimate of the whole crop of cotton grown in the
world in any particular year, [ have found no precedent to aid me except
for the single year of 1834, when evidence was given before the Chamber of
Peers, in France, that it proba bly amounted to about 460 realli of pounds.
But this computation was so deficient, assigning none to Mexico, and none
to S. America, or Africa, except to Brazil 24 millions of pounds, and to Egypt
20 millions of pounds, and only 60 millions of pounds to India, and 350 mul-
lions of pounds to the United States, and the balance of 6 millions of pounds

.to the West Indies, that no safe reliance could be placed on it as correct for
the whole known world. My own course has been to ascertain from all
attainable sources the exports in raw cotton of each country; to add to
those the probable amount consumed at home and not exported; looking te
the climate of the place, the habits of its population, and the scattered
facts on this point found in respectable authors, and then to compute
therefrom the whole quantity grown. Another general test of the correct-
ness of one of my conclusions, viz: that the whole crop in the world has
quite doubled in the last half century ,and now equals quite 900 millions of
pounds, though the estimate before named is only 460 millions of pounds,
exists in the fact that a greater increase than this has happened in mae
crop of the United States alone ; and though, in some other countries,
diminution has occurred in the exports of cotton {rom various cat uses, a
need not here be detailed, yet the use of it has probably been reduced
in no country, and in many, within that period, it has, from greater cheap-
ness, by improvements in machinery and steam, with its healthfulness, com-
pared with other clothing, largely increased, and in some been for the first
time introduced. Supposing that in warm climates, and in a populatiorf
not highly civilized as in Turkey, two pounds of cotton per head for each
person are yearly consumed, (see Urqut vart on Turkey, page 150) and in the
south of China and India, not over one and a half pounds to each person,
and in the places near or under the equator still less; and that in more
civilized countries where cotton is used, as in England, France, and the
United States, from eight to twelve pounds per head are consumed: and sup-
posing that only a little more than half the population of the globe, estimated
at four hundred and fifty millions, use cotton, the consumption w ould, onan
average, at only two pounds per head, be quite equal to the estimated crop for
the whole world. For some years past itis supposed that the consumption of
cotton has been greater than the crop, and hence, that the old stocks on hands
have been more exhausted, and a larger portion of the new crop called for

early (see table [). This has sustained the price and required an
augmented crop of at least 20 millions of pounds per annum. See post,
and Ewidence before the French Chambers, February, 1835.

[ Doc. No. 146. ] 9

{3.] The crop as well as the export of cotton of the United States, from
1809 to 1815, was sensibly diminished by means of our commercial restric-
tions and war, and the crop of other countries was increased to supply the
place of ours In foreign consumption. Our crop has been estimated with
more care, and from better data, than the crop of other portions of the
world. From 1821 to 1834 it has been estimated by others much lower
than in the table and as follows:

Years. Mill’s of lbs. Years. Mills of lbs.
1821 - - iil 1828 - - 2132
1822 - “ 1214 1829 7 - 2553
1823 - - 136 1830 - - 292

1824 f SN ggg. | atiaar Sedge ila
1825 . SBMS Se val Sieh eo aan _ 9964
1826 - - 2112 1833 - - 360

1827 - 285 | 1834 - - 3201

The above is from Marshall’s tables on the trade, manufactures, &c. of
England, page 110. In McCulloch’s Commercial Dictionary, page 434,
Reuss’ tables, page 270, and Baines’s History of Cotton, page 308, similar
statements are made, but they are manifestly too low, as being often less in
quantity than our exports ; and they may differ occasiona lly from being
founded on the exports of a Seticulat year, as 1825, and which were
chiefly made up of the smaller crop grown in a previous year, as In 1824.
They are incorrect even then, as our crop for many calendar years has been
from 50 to 90 millions of pounds more than the exporis of each suc-

ceeding fiscal year; this last being composed of the growth of the pre-

5

ae calendar year, with a small portion of it brought to market from )

xe Ist of August to the Ist of October, omitted, ‘and a. like portion
of the subsequent calendar year included. The 50 to 90 millions of
pounds are the quantity consumed at home, and which quantity lessens
in amount as we go back to the periods when our manufactures were
fewer, and when we consumed in them some cotton of foreign growth.
See another estimate in the 3d volume of the Parliamentary Reports,
(1833) page 89. Another difference may arise from the bale made up here,
being abroad computed often at only 300 popnels (see on this ante and
post). The crop in the United States in 1834, was injured in the northern
parts of the cotton growing States; but so much new land was. put into
cultivation, that the whole “exports were a little larger, and the home con-
sumption is presumed also to have been more. ‘The crop for the year
1835, has likewise been more seriously injured in the same quarters; but
the exports of it since September, have, from early ripening, high prices,
éc. been larger than either of the two previous years, and some “think the
whole crop was larger, while it is believed by a few that the whole crop will
turn-out to be somewhat less , though not so much as apprehended, the in-
crease of lands in cultivation has been so great. February 17,' 1836
the exports ascertained, on the Atlantic, had been 377,420 bags; but to same
time in 1835, only 340, 379; and in 1834, only 309,97 6. For a view of our
power in the United States to srow more cotton, see table B, note [2].

[4.] "The crop of Brazil is computed on its ascertained exports at dif-
ferent periods to England and elsewhere, and a home consumption in
a small ratio to its ‘population. (See table on exports.) It has been

10 [ Doc. No. 146. |

diminished of late years by importing cotton manufactures for home con-
sumption, as in 1833 and 4, from England largely. See tables N and O,
and notes, and Pitkin, 384 and ’5, where are more details. Cotton was
first planted or cultivated in Brazil in 1781, for exportation. Smithers’s
History of Liverpool.

[5] "The crop of the West Indies is estimated in a similar manner; after
deducting from their exports the probable portion of cotton brought there
from the Spanish Main, and thence re-exported. In 1812, it is said, that
the crop of all the West Indies did not exceed 54 millions, (Colquhoun
378;) and chiefly in Barhadoes, Bahama islands, Dominico, and Granada ;
4 Humbolt’s Per. Nar. 123 to ’5, and notes. But this is helieved to have
been underrated. England now exports there largely of cotton manufac-
tures. See 1833 and 1834, table N, and notes: and the United States
export there some of them yearly, as well as France. All this tends to
diminish the crop raised for home consumption, and probably that for
export. See exports of Mits. table O. Cotton was crown first in 1776, at St.
Domingo, for export. 2 v. Hist.of Colom. But earlier in other islands, and
they furnished a large part of English wants before 1785; Edin. Cyclop.
Art. “Cotton.” In 1789, Hayti, alone, exported over 7 millions of pounds:
about 24 millions of pounds in 1801, and since that, less than 1 million of
pounds yearly. See a table in McCulloch, 926. In 1824, a little over 1 mil-
lion of pounds, and in 1832 about 14 million. See McCulloch, 927.

[6] 'The supposed crop of Egypt, in former years, is predicated on the
authority of the Dictionary of Spanish Commerce and Finance, vol. 3, page
29. On her exports, (see exports) and for 1834, the New Monthly Maga-
zine for September, 1835. She imported cotton from Smyrna and Greece
till within twenty years. See below note 9th. By the last advices her
crop scan in 1835, is said to be short, not exceeding 18 or 20 millions of
pounds.

[7] The crop of the rest of Africa is computed from her exports from
Morocco, Gambia, &c. and the habits and number of her population, and
her soil and climate, where cotton is indigenous, and has always been
grown in many sections since first discovered. McCulloch, Dic. 436.
Of late she imports on the eastern side fewer cotton goods from India, and
more there and on the western side from England and the United States.
See for 1833 and’4, from Eng. table N, and notes. See exports from the
United States, table O. In the island of Mauritius, in 1806, nearly two
millions of pounds of cotton were raised, but it fell off gradually till in
1831, little or none was produced. 4 Montgomery’s History of British
Col. page 209. See table N, note [10.]

[8] In India, the estimate rests on her exports and vast population, long |
clothed chiefly in cotton of her own growth. McCulloch, Dic. 437. The
Isle of Bourbon produced it of a quality almost equal to the Sea Island. |
London Cyclop. Art. “Cotton.” See her exports, Table D. But of late |
years her exports of manufactured goods have declined, and her importa-
tions of them from England alone, exceed $10,000,000 yearly. See |
exports of manufactures from England and the United States, table N and |
O, and evidence on the East India Company, 1832, appendix, page 287:

[ Doc. No. 146. | i}

and on the growth and use of cotton in the islands of the India Archi-
pelago, see 1 Crawford, History, 177, 207, and 449; 2 Crawford, 350.
It is believed, that the cultivation of cotton for export is on the increase;
labor is so low, and the trade of India having become more free. The
estimates for the crop in India are probably not high enough, rather than
being too large. See exports, table E and Ff’, and supplement to Cyclop.
Brittan. “Cotton.”

[9] The rest of Asia, including China, Japan, Persia, Arabia and
Turkey, from the mildness of its climate, great population, and cus-
tomary clothing, is supposed not to be computed too high. ,In 1766, it was
grown much about Smyrna. See Postlethwait’s Dictionary, “Cotton.”
Only about 6 millions of pounds in 1834, near Smyrna, and most of that
was shipped to Marseilles and Trieste. McCulloch, page 1069.

The cultivation of cotton, in China, began about the 13th century, for
purposes of manufacture, though before raised in gardens for ornament.
The crop increased rapidly, and was very large, probably much beyond
the amount assigned in this column, till 1785 to 1790, when it began to be
considerably discontinued for the purpose of raising grain, during and in
consequence of famine. Much has since been imported from India, though
now in the small statistical knowledge attainable on this point as to
China, she may raise more cotton than the large amount computed for
her, in connection with Japan, Cochin-China, &c. Supplement to Cyclop.
Brit. “Cotton.” See exports of raw cotton, table D. ‘Travellers and
merchants see but little of China usually, except the south parts and the
sea board; and if in the great use of silk, furs, &c. in the colder portions,
it is considered that 100 millions of her population use cotton, and from
their poverty only 14 pounds each, the whole amount would be 150 mil-
lions of pounds yearly in China alone.

[10] This crop in South America and Mexico rests on similar principles,
as the chief clothing was cotton when the country was first discovered by
the Spaniards. It is now often of superior quality. (See Humboldt’s Per.
Nar. page 202.) The exports since have been considerable. (See exports.)
But of late years the crop must be less, as Mexico, as well as Peru and Chil
imports now from England yearly many cottons, besides what they get
from the United States and elsewhere. (See exports of manufactures.)
Cotton began to be cultivated for export in Caraccas in 1782. The saw gin
is not yet used, but wooden rollers. 2 Hist. of Colomb. The plant is
found indigenous, (Mollier’s travels in Colombia, page 121; 4 Humb. Per.
N. 123.) In Hall’s Columbia, page 27, it is said only about 4 millions
of pounds are grown in that Government yearly. This is too small an
amount. Cultivated in Surinam since 1735. Smithers’s Hist.of Liverpool,
page 131.

[11] This column includes some remote islands, and the south of Spain,
{taly and Greece, and their islands, with the Canaries, where cotton was
formerly more raised, and still is considerably. See as to Spain and Italy,
2 Chaptal on French industry, page 6. From Italy and Egypt, in 1825,
when cotton was very high, over 233 millions of pounds were exported.
McCulloch, 949. Some has been raised in New South Wales. McCul-
loch, Dict. of Com. 436; Smithers’s Hist. of Liverpool, page 126; and the
cultivation is said to be resumed in Italy. Though some exports were

12 f Doc. No. 146. ]

formerly described as from Portugal, little or no cotton grew there ; and
the exports of it thence came chiefly from Brazil.

[12] Some confusion has arisen from the different use or application of
the word “cotton.” It is said to be a word of Arabic origin (Smuithers’s
History of Liv. 115); but the application sometimes of the word “linen,”
and at others of the word “woollen,” to the vegetable of three or four
general varieties, and which produces the wool or down now called “ cot-
fon,” has led to some mistakes about its growth and use formerly in certain
countries, which it is now difficult to correct. McCulloch’s Dict. of Com.
436 and ’8. Baines, 287 and ’96, note 66. But it was probably grown
and used largely in ancient times in Arabia, as well as India, America,
and Africa, except perhaps in Egypt, where linen, it is supposed, chiefly
superseded it, and can now be detected, but no cotton, in the clothing of
the mummies, by the joints in the fibres of the stalk of the flax, being
visible with a microscope, whereas the fibres of cotton from the pod have
no joints. See Thompson’s paper in Baines’s appendix. London Cyclop..
article “Cotton,” contra. ‘The kind of cotton chiefly cultivated now, and
especially im the United States, is not the tree or shrub, but the annual
and herbaceous varieties. London Cyclop. art. “Cotton.”

—

[ Doc. No. 146. ] 13
B.
COTTON, RAW.

Crop of cotton grown in—[1]—[2}]

ae. | |
fo) S PCE iaetig : ;
} 5 Earl = 3 ar i ine a %
& 6 SR eek ae aaa : Bs Meena oe .
B= | a Po aes \ Tony ee eS S = a a2 S
So = = Sirict & I = 2 3 a
sry 5 5 cs) Hey <S — o Ra o a
> ee MRP ee O fs < = = Ags
Ibs. |” Ibs. ibs. ibs. -| Ibs. | Ibs. | Ibs. | Ibs. | Ibs. | Ibs.
beh. (iets PRO si 2s Nala, std a Jie eweph aX.
i | |
Millions.! Millions. Millions.|Millions. Millions.|Millns. es ake ape Millns.! Mill’n.
| j |
us i! 12 | b |
* = |
| | | |
| , | |
| | |
| | |
5 4 20 0) oe . al
|
| ! |
j H !
|
| | |
| i { |
|
Giclee 7 eyikee «40 Sling of i SS lt de 5h Wet
| | | | |
t | i
| | |
| | | | |
| i i | |
| | |
| ;
Bey oY a0 asi HON IAT on Pe rage (lS “Hoel eet
| | | | | |
|
Weadt | gues | |
Droit eben 10 7. | 2 weds 45 1. 30 38 t
| H ‘ | |
|
i
| | | | | |
BB <1OR 1. 103 ge WO! ap OT es, fessor hi 55 | I
tO ee Mey voy L200 85 45 85 |, 62>) t
|
ht ie a | |
| [3]

i4 { Doc. No. 146. ]

[1] I have not heen able to find any official returns of either the General —
or the State Governments, which give the crops of cotton in each State.
The present table has, therefore, been compiled from the best data in my
power: such as the foreign exports of cotton from each State, the exports
coastwise, the quantity supposed to be exported from each not grown
within its limits, and the amount yearly consumed within its limits,
Many mistakes are made abroad, and some at home, by considering all
the exports of each State as its own crop, or by computing the whole
foreign exports as the whole crop, or by estimating all the bales in the
United States alike, and only at 300 pounds on an average. See such
mistakes in Reuss’s Tables on American Trade, 270; and Parliamentary
Evidence on Manufactures, A. D. 1832.

But it is well known in this country, that the exports from New Orleans,
both foreign and domestic, are composed in part of the crops of Louisiana,
Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama. Part of the crops in each
of those States is consumed at home, part is exported coastwise to the
northern States, and the crops of the southwestern portion of Mississippi, and
the southern portion of Alabama, are chiefly exported from Mobile. In
addition to some of the above remarks, applicable to the other cotton
erowing States, it is proper to add, that part of the crop of Georgia is ex-
ported from Florida, and part from South Carolina: part of Florida from
Alabama; and part of North Carolina from Virginia.

For an explanation of some of the fluctuations in our exports in certain
years, see table A, note [3].

[2] From data given under the head of “ Capital,” in table C, note [3], it
will be seen that, in producing the whole cotton crop of the United
States, only about two millions of acres of land are cultivated. In table D
it appears that all the foreign exports of cotton in the world do not probably
exceed 535 millions of pounds, and of which the United States now export
about 384 millions of pounds; a large portion of the residue is from the
remotest parts of Asia, very little of it now coming to Europe. But if ne-
cessary or profitable, we could raise the whole of the other 150 millions, by
putting into cultivation only about 500,000 acres more cotton land, and
employing less than 100,000 more field hands in this branch of industry.

But supposing that Asia, from her distance and habits, continues to use
chiefly her own raw cotton, that the increase of population in the United
States should continue much as heretofore, and that the countries in Europe
and elsewhere, now supplied with cotton manufactures made chiefly from
our crops, should increase in population, or in the use of cotton, as fast
as the United States does in population alone, and there would be required
to supply the increased annual demand only about 21 millions of pounds
more of raw cotton, or the product in the United States of less than 70,000
acres more each year. This has been nearly our average increase of crops
in the last ten years. See table and note in extract from annual Treasury
report. It has required about 11,000 more field laborers a year, or only
jth the annual increase of our whole population. But we probably
have now, not in cultivation, more acres of land suitable for cotton, than
would be sufficient to raise all the cotton now grown in the world; as that
would require only three to five millions of acres. Hence it must be ob-
vious, that there is good cotton land enough in the United States, and at
low prices, easily to grow, not only all the cotton wanted for foreign ex-
port in the world, but to supply the increased demand for it, probably, for
ages. ‘The only preventive, of which there is much likelihood, seems to

[ Doc. No. 146. ] 15

be in the augmented price of such labor as is usually devoted to this cul-
ture ; so that it may not be possible to raise the crop at so low a rate as to
keep possession of the European market against all competition.

In getting possession of that market so fully and rapidly heretofore, (as
shown in the extracts from the last annual report,) the United States have
been much aided by the good quality of their cotton, the low price of land,
and the great improvements in cleaning cotton by Whitney’s cotton gin
since 1793. One person is able to perform with it in a day the work of
1,000 without it. Cox’s Digest of Manufactures, page 667; Gales and
Seaton’s documents, 2d volume. Besides these advantages, the unusual
industry and enterprise of our population, and its freedom from tax-
ation compared with the people of most other countries, and the wide ex-
tent of our commerce, have promoted our unprecedented progress. Baines’s
History, 301: 5 Malte Brun, page 195.

The old mode of cleaning it by wooden rollers, and with the bow by
hand, is still used in India and Colombia, and it is there sown bread cast
instead of in drills, and much neglected afterwards. Baines 64: see 3
Crawford’s History, 350.

The creat vibrations in the prices per pound of raw cotton grown in the

eek ~

United States, are very striking, as exhibited in table C. The influence of
these on the sales of public land and our revenue, from both them and the
imports of foreign merchandise, has been briefly examined in the last
annual report, extracts from which are annexed. 'The further influence of
these on the prosperity of the south, on the rise in the value of their slave
property, and on the great profits yielded by all their capital invested in
growing cotion, must be very apparent to every careful observer. ‘The

single fact, that_in no year has the price been but a fraction below 10 cents

“per pound, or a rate sufficient to yield a fair profit, while it has, at times,
“been as hich as 29, 34, and even 44, “and been, on an average, over 16
cents’per pound since 1802, and over 21 since 1790, is probably without a
parallel, in showing a large and continued profit. “Further details on these
and similar considerations must be left to other persons and other occa-
sions, [See table ©, note 3.]

[3] In South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, the Sea Island cotton,
(supposed to have come originally from Persia, and in 1786 from Bahama
to the United States) succeeds ; but grows there to perfection only in cer-
tain districts near the seacoast. During the last 30 years the average
annual crop has been between 9 and 11 million pounds. See exports and
prices, and a table in Seybert, 152-3: Smithers’s, 132. But the quality of
a part of it is inferior. McCulloch, 456. It has taken the place in Europe
of the fine cotton from the isle of Bourbon. London Cyclop. article « cot-
ton,” and is superior to that. Supplement to Cyclop. Brit. “cotton.”

[4] The growth of cotton in the United States began as early as 1787,
even of the sea island, and of other kinds earlier still, in small quantities,
MeCulloch, 440, says it began soon after the close of the war of the revo-
lution, though not exported till 1790.

'l’. Cox, cited in Rees’s Cyclopedia, in article “ United States,” says cot-
ton was raised here in gardens before 1786, but not by planters as a crop,
and before 1787 we never exported a bale. [He means of our own growth,
itis presumed. See table F, note 6.| We exported a little before 1787, viz:
1785, five bags ; and in 1786 six bags; which Smithers’s History of Liver-
pool, page 129, supposes was grown here, but see table F’. note 9.

[ Doc. No. 146. |]

C._COTTON, RAW.

Crop of cotton grown in—[1]

Capital employed in con- |Persons employed | Value of whole

i nection with growing. [3] | im growing, and crop in
| dependent. 5
& f Shae s 3 5 2
wn ro wm | oD ® mM ©
iS 5 rs) ees = Fs iS y >
3 "an sa ih ey YS 5S = 5 = ©
a a By es ey a x2 a an
¢ =) QQ i= | ey =) ie) =) Qe
3 | ea
eo
> Cents. Pence. | Dollars. | Dollars. | Dollars. Dollars. |Dollars.
eo sohiga Millions.' Millions.! Millions.| Millions.!|Miulions.|Millions..MiPons.
— ~10 « >
1790 144. | 12 to 21.
1791 26 13 to 30 34 s 33 Au 1 1 403
1792 29. | 20 to 30 ot om i:
1793 32 13 to 22
1794. 33 12 to 18
1795 363 15t6:27"| |
1796 363 | 12 to 29 | |
1797 | 34 . |, 12 to 37 | |
1798 | ».39. | 22 to 45 |
1799 | 44 | 17to 60 | |
1800 28 16 to 36 |
1801} 44 | 171038 | 80 s BOp Wide : By.) 1898
1802 19 12 to 38 re i
1803 19 8to 15 |
1804. 20 10 to 18
1505 2 14 to 19 | |
1806 22 12 to 15
1SO7 Oe COs 10 to 14
1808 |; 19 9 to 30 |
1809 16 | 10to 18 |
i810 16. | 10to 19 | |
1812 10: | 11 to 14 | ree
1813 12 16 to 2 |
1814 15 |28av’rage |
1315 Ol 20e “| |
1816 991 | 182 «< | |
1817 Ca > |
1318 | 34 | 20 « |
1319 24 BEG
1820 17 ii Sa |
1821 16 ORs 300 33 83 | 2 tL 293 | 37
1922 | 16: | 8} < | |
1823 0&1 tS a aN |
1824 15 Shi intl
1825 Q1 113 SS
1826 il 6h 6S | :
1827 Ob) V GRIEF 34 | |
1828 194 63 hou! | |
i929 | Jo | ett | | | |
1830 10 ge | |
1831 Be eR 8! 1 MEBD) (| 30 58 4 4 a5: | 29;
isso || «10 | «6g | 5 tne
ist | 13 | Be |
18: 1 ie: = 3 - “ 5 76 =| 363
1835 163 | 123 ‘5 800 31 50 1 fot
| Bi [4] [5]

| ee see ee
e 1) Tade Wawe va rc, of &
O KM } ne eam a i s
\[ Doc. No. 146. | 17

{1] From 1802 to 1826,.inclusive, the prices for the United States are
taken from Marshall’s tabs eee 110. Since that date, from official re-
turns.

The prices, given for the United States, are those at the places of ex-
portation, and are the average during the year, and including all kinds of
cotton: but the sea islana cotton is worth usually two hundred and fifty

\— per cent. more than the other kinds (see below in note 2); and formerly the

\ difference was still greater, when the amount grown elsewhere was not

<\ so large. The price of cotton for 1790 ‘is from the ‘Treasury report,
15th_February, 1791. . The prices frony 1791 to 1801, inclusive, are from |

Almy and Brown’s books ,at Providence, deducting one cent per pound -

. for freight, &c. The prices of raw cotton from 1789 to 1502, in the United 5
States, fluctuated largely, and are quoted somewhat differently in some of ¢
the prices current during those years. See the United States Gazette and
Pennsylvania Mercury for that period. - But the differences are not greai if
an average be taken for the whole year.

Where rich lands and labor were low, as in Mississippi and Alabama a

few years ago, two cents per pound for cotton in the seed, or eight cents
when cleaned, would pay expenses. It is supposed to be a profitable crop
in the southwestern States at ten cents per pound. In Baines’s History
of Cotton, page 316, it is stated that the planter can make a proiit at six
cents per pound.
‘ In India, the Bengal cotton, of inferior quality, itis said, can be raised
for three cents per pound, and delivered in England for five cents.
See evidence on Hast India Company, 1832, page 286, appendix: Smithers’s
History of Liverpoo!, i116. It has since been said, that it will cost five
cents per pound to deliver it on the wharves at Bombay. !t sold in India,
in 1831 and 1832, at eight to nine cents per pound. See McCulloch’s
Dictionary, page 238. In 1820, in 3 Crawford’s History, 551, it is said to
bring from eight to nine cents in the Indian islands. ;

[2] The prices in England are given in pence, as they are so much
oftener referred to in that form, but can easily be converted into cents; esti-
mating the pound sterling at $4 80; by doubting the number of pence.
They are generally the prices at Liverpool; and from 1793 to 1797, and
from 1799 to 1814, are from Tooke on Prices, page 11, appendix; and are
of “Georgia bowed cotton,” without the duty. The rest, except from 1789
to 1793, and 1834 and 1835, are from Marshall’s tables, page 114; and
Baines, page 352-3: differing in some cases a little, and in Marshall giving
the prices of each kind of cotton separately. See a table in Smithers’s
History of Liverpool. page 149. Those from 1789 to 1793 are from Baines,
page 313, and are of West India cotton; and for 1834 and 1885, the Liver-
pool reports have been the guide.

As an illustration of the difference in value of different kinds of raw
cotton, | annex a statement of their prices at Liverpool, June 16, 1$35:

: d, d.
Uplands - = s C x 4 fromed0” to 122
Orleans - : “ . : Ao | 1) 40,938
Alabama - 4 i “ Each 92 to 123
Sea Island E j y is BL) MEU OS” ta TB
Brazil - - - - - LSE SS tO

18 [ Doc. No. 146. ]

d. d.
Surats ._ - - - - - - from 7 to 8}
Bengal - e - - - SO Ne
Laguyra_ - - - 3 - - “ 134 to 14
West Indies - - - = -. | % 12} to, 144

See more on Prices in Edinburg Review, 427, (1832.) McCulloch, page
437,441. 'The finest kinds of sea island often bri ing four times as ‘much
as the inferior qualities. McCulloch, page 437. In 1799 it sold in Liver-
pool for five shillings per pound. Smithers, page 156. At Smyrna, before
1767, the price appears to have been six or seven cents per pound,
Postlewait’s Dictionary. At the river Gambia the price per pound is
about four cents. Montgomery’s Colonial History. In Demarara the
price (in 1815) is said to average about nine to ten cents per pound. Edin-
burgh Encyclopedia, article “cotton.” In Colombia in 1822 the price per
pound was about the same as in the United States, but it fluctuates there
and in other Spanish American Governments from eight to fifteen cents
a pound, with the quality and the year. See Humboldt and Mollier’s
Travels.

[3| Capiran. The capital employed m growing cotton, with the income
it yields, is a question of much interest and importance. But very little
can be found concerning it in books, and the information obtained on it
from different correspondents in the United States is defective, and is
founded on quite different data in different States and by different persons.

The Blemnetits of any computation must be, the average cost per acre of
cotton lands, wild or cleared, and ifthe former, the expense “of clearing them ;
the amount of labor necessary per acre top roduce a given quantity of raw
cotton ; the cost of labor, whether in the form of wages or otherwise ; the
expense of tools, horses, &c. with salaries of overseers, taxes paid, &c. &e.

One mode of making the computation is as followse The average cost
of cotton lands when wild, in the old States, did not probably exceed often
half a dollar per acre, including fees for patents, &c. In the new States it
has generally ranged from aT 25 to $20 00 per acre, depending on its
quality, location, and the price of cotton. The actual settlers, in pur-
chasing of capitalists, have generally been compelled to give an advance
from 50 to 100 per cent.; some times much more.

The expense of clearing wild land averages from ten to fifteen dollars per
acre. Land in acondition to be cultivated, will, on an average, in the
United States, yield from 250lbs. to SOOlbs. of clean cotton, In the old
States, 125lbs. clean, or 500lbs. in the seed is an ordinary crop. (Cooper’s
Polit. Econ. p. 96.) Cox, in 1810, estimated it at 138lbs. and others at
120lbs. (Rees’s Cyclop. art. “ United States.”)

It is beheved, that one eld hand or laborer, with the aid hereafter named,
can cultivate, on an average, eight acres Some say five to seven, and others
ten. He will at the same time assist in raising five to eight acres of corn.

It is usual to employ in this business slave labor, and the next element
in the calculation must be the capital mvested in slaves for this purpose,
and the annual cost of their maintenance.

The price of field bands has nearly or quite doubled in ten years; and
they now often costeight hundred or one thousand dollars, when formerly
four and five hundred dollars were the usual rate each.

‘The maintenance of them is another item very differently computed.
Sometimes it is done by the purchase of more land and cultivating it, put-

+

[ Doc. No. 146 ] 19

ting stock on it of cows, sheep, &c. so as, with the aid of other slaves, kept
partly for that purpose and partly for the culture of cotton, to raise corn,
pork, &c. to feed, and other materials to clothe the whole. In such case
the additional land put in cultivation, the additional slaves bought, and
the stock on the plantation, &c. must be considered as so much more
capital.

The additional slaves in such case, being more youthful, or more aged
ones, or infirm females, may be fairly computed at an equal number with
the field hands, but costing only about hali the price. The additional
land should be for cultivation, about twenty acres for each field hand.
The capital in oxen, horses, sheep, tools for husbandry, &c. about thirty
dollars to each slave on the plantation.

To these must be added the capital which may be deemed temporary,
and not as a permanent investment, and hence is to be all yearly returned,
such as expense for extra clothing not made on the plantation, for medicine,
overseers, tools for labor, taxes, freight, &c. which may be forty-five dollars
to each slave.

Differing from these last data, in some respects, in substance, and wholly
unlike in form, is another mode of computing all the capital invested except
that in the mere cotton lands. Instead of estimating the price of slaves,
&c. it may be considered that slave labor could be hired, with food, clothing,
medicine, &c. at a cost for each field hand from one hundred to one hun-
dred and twenty dollars per year. ‘That from thirty to forty dollars each
would defray the annual expense of overseers, tools, horses for each, and
that the additional and equal number of slaves, not prime field hands,
could be hired and supported for less than half the annual cost of the
others.

On these data the cotton crop, as estimated for 1835, at 480 million pounds,
would grow on 1,600,000 acres at 300lbs. per acre, or 1,920,000 at 250lbs.
each. Cossidering that some lands wear out quick and are changed, pro-
bably the whole quantity cultivated for cotton in the United States, at this
time, should be estimated at two millions or more of acres.

From the above elements the whole capital invested in growing the cotton
crop in the United States can be readily computed. On one hypothesis,
converting the whole capital into that which is permanent, and partly
mvesied in lands, slaves, and tools, as fixed capital, and partly invested in
bank or other stocks, or in loans so as to yield an income, and not a capital
sufficient to defray those kinds of expenses which are usually deemed tem-
porary, and are yearly remunerated, or require what is called a circu-
lating or floating capital, and the whole will amount to more than 900
millions of dollars. On another hypothesis, considering the capital, as it
generally is, divided into fixed and circulating ; the capital as fixed, which
is invested in lands, slaves, stocks of horses, tools, &c. and only about
thirty millions ef dollars for other expenses, as circulating or temporary,
and to be itself, and not its income or interest, used and repaid yearly, and
the whole capital of both kinds will not quite equal 800 million dollars.

‘This last amount accords nearly with a still different mode of testing
the quantity of capital, by supposing that the whole crop of 480 million
pounds, at ten cents per pound, being 48 million dollars, would yield six
per cent. on ail the money invested in any way in raising the crop. If the
capital used was all permanently invested, it would, on this hypothesis,
amowit to near 800 mution dollars; but as from 25 to 30 million dollars is

20 [ Doc. No. 146. ]

temporarily invested, and must itself be repaid yearly, the whole may, in
the usual mode of treating of capital employed in such business, be con-
sidered rather under than over 800 million dollars.

That amount, however, has beei assumed as about correct, in the table,
and is near enough for the estimate and comparisons at different periods in
this country, and at the same period between this and other countries. In
others, as in India, Brazil, and Egypt, the cost of labor is less, and perhaps
the value of land, though the latter is doubtful; and the crop per acre, and.
the amount of labor performed by each hand, is believed to be less, inde-
pendent of the failure there to use much the improved cotton gin.

Here, at 250 pounds per acre as an average crop, and eight acres an
average cultivation by one hand, the product would be 2,000 pounds per
hand, or at ten cents per pound, would be the average of two hundred
dollars per field hand. All the planter obtains over tem cents per pound
would yield him a large rate of interest above 6 per cent. to pay for the
greater risk and uncertainty of capital invested in this species of property.

See table B, note 2.) The whole crop of 1834 was probably worth 775
million dollars at the actual market prices, though at 10 cents per pounc!
only 48 millions.

lt is difficult to institute any just comparison between the profits of capital
invested here in the growing of cotton, and in the manufacture of it ; as
in the latter so much move in proportion is invested in temporary or circu-
lating capital to pay for wages and stock, and the whole of which is to be
annually repaid. Neither have I leisure for the details.

Indeed it might have comported better with the technical language of
political economy to have divided the whole expenditures in raising cotton
into three heads, viz: labor, capital and land; to yield in return, wages for
the iabor, profit or interest on the capital, and rent for the land. (See
Senior’s Outline of Political Economy, page 165, from the Encyclopedia
Metropolitana.) It will be easy, for those who preier it, to throw the caleu-
lation into that form; but the results then, would not be such as aceord
best with the views proposed in this part of the table C; which are, to pre-
sent to the community here, in plain terms, and in a form as intelligible as
possibie to people at Jarge, the amount of capital actually employed at
different periods in growing the cotton crop in the United States; whether
invested in the original purchase of lands, the clearing, or the culture of
them; 1 the purchase of slaves, or in procuring an ineome for the pay-
ment, or im the actual payment of wages of free labor to raise the crop;
for buying seed, tools, food, raiment, horses, &c. and for payment of taxes,
overseers, or any other expense, incidental or direct, connected with the
production of the crop.

‘Two brief statements of a very general character are subjoined, in illns-
tration of some of the above remarics.

Ist. The capital invested in cotton lands under cultivation, at two million
acres, and worth cleared, on an average, $20 per acre, is - $40,000,660
The capital in field hands, and in other lands, stock, labor,
&c. to feed and clothe them, at $100 per year, on 340,000
inynumber, would require the interest or income of a
capite!, at six per cent. of : ¥
The maintenance of 340,000 more assistanis, &c. at $30
each per year, would require the income of a capital at
six per cent. of - : . - - - 167,000,008

544,000,000

[ Doc. No. 146. ] Q1

Amount carried over “ - - C - $751,000,000
The capital to supply enough interest or mcome to pay for
tools, horses for ploughing cotton, taxes, medicines, over-

seers, &c. at $30, for the first 340,000, would be - - 167,000,000
Making in all a permanent capital, if so used, equal to $918, 000,000
2d. The capital in cotton lands, as stated above —- $40,000,000

Capital in the purchase of 340, 000 field hands, at $800 dich,

on an average” - 272,000,000
Capital in the other 340, 000 t to aid, avid to raise food, clothing,

&ec. at half price - - : . - 136,000,000

Capital in horses, cattle, sheep, utensils, &c. for plantation,

about $30 to each person, to aid in making food and

clothing, &e. —- - - - - - 20,400,000
Capital in other lands to support stock, raise corn, &c. at 20

acres to each of the 680,000, worth $20 per acre cleared — 272,000,000
Capital, temporary, or floating, to buy clothing not made on

plantation, pay taxes, overseers, freight, tools for cotton, &c.

$45 to each - - - - - - 30,600,000

$71,000,000

Making, in all, about $740,000,000 of capital permanently invested-o% or
fixed, and about $30,000,000 temporarily or circulating.

The crop in Demarara, per acre, is said to be 400 pounds clean. Hdin-
burgh Eneyclopedia, article «Cotton, ” 1815. But, in another place, the
crop in Guiana is computed, on an average, at only 200 pounds, and costs
_ 14 cents (or 7d.) per pound to raise it.

The capital, per acre, invested there in land, buildings, slaves, &c. is

computed for 1514, at about $730, which is nearly double the amount com-
puted above for the United States. (See same book.) He states also the cost
of cotton landin Louisiana at about $124 per acre, slaves at $430 each, and
assigns 30 for a heresy of 600 aeres and over; horses and sheep for
same, costing about $2,250, or $75 for each slave. Those 30 slaves will
raise 1,000 pounds of cotton each; (and, it is presumed, maintain them-
selves from the land not in cotton, and stock on it.) "The annual expenses of
overseers, physician, tools, clothing and taxes, with freight of cotton to
market, are computed at about $1,350, or BAB each per year; which, de-
ducted from the price of the cotton, valued at 21 cents per pound, or about
$5,450, leaves about $5,100 as a return on the original investment of about
$22,500, (or at the rate of nearly 25 per cent.) viz:

600 acres at $124 per acre - - - - - $7,500
~30 slaves, at $430 each - a - . - 12,900
Horses, s sheep, esa: - : - - - . 2,250

$22,050

‘

[4] 'The number of Be is computed on similar data and principles
to those suggested in the first mode of estimating the capital. Some allow-
ances are made in certain cases, but for comparison there has been pre-

22 [ Doc. No. 146. ]

served similar proportions in all the years for which the computation 1s
carried out in the table.

Thus two millions of acres, at one field hand to every six acres, would
require about 340,000 laborers: but many compute that the number in the
United States is over 550,000, who are chiefly, though not entirely, engaged
in field labor. Suppose the whole number to be double the field hands, as
above computed, or 680,000, who-are engaged in field labor, picking and
otherwise assisting in the cultivation of cotton and corn, and the estimate of
laborers is complete at about 680,000. But allowing that a number more
should be added, who are connected with the cultivators, as infirm women,
very young children, and too aged persons, &c. unable to labor in the field,
besides overseers, owners and their respective families, dependent on the
cotton crop, and it is presumed that then, a million of persons would be
considered as now engaged in the United States, directly and indirecily, in
the growing of cotton: but the actual laborers are only about two-thirds of
that number.

The numbers are, for comparative views, in all other countries stated om
the same principle, though they are doubtless more, in most nations, to
raise the same quantity of cotton for reasons too obvious for recital, and
especially where the saw gin and horse power are less used.

[5] The whole value is computed from the quantity of the crop in any
particular calendar year, and the price it bears here the next calendar and
fiscal year, which is the time most of it is sold.

The whole value of what is grown elsewhere is computed from the num
ber of pounds, as estimated in table A, and rating it, on an average, at only
one-half the value per pound, at the different perods which the American
cotton, on an average, then bore at home. Considering the qualities of
each, their cleanliness, distances from a foreign market, the great propor-
tion of it in Asia, é&e. this is supposed to be a high enough value. See
prices (note 2 above, and note 1) in India, and in Liverpool, of different
kinds of cotton. Our cotton is of a better species, and better cleaned, &c.
See 3 Crawford’s Hist. of Ind. Arch. 350 to 360. Though in 1791, its

i y was considered so inferior, that it was supposed foreign cotton
must be imported to supply factories. Gales and Seaton’s Document, vol. 1.
Finance, page 142.

ha a ant |
wntarT

Aa ed) aan’ fe Seay TMC

ee
Pee : : ea a : be 7 =
7 A - = be = 2. J
i. ae ; == : —_— x
j ae ae = 7 a :
ss e — + _ = =
1* ae ii, oe ae b ve -- A ;
: -, — » z S ~ J
= = & E ? t = - : :
. = -
1

Oe re
7 F

= nae
=

x

ay"
ee:

‘ = ya ee | zi 1d Se
a ee Ee oe ee =n Stig eens miemicapinon = a
J " eon - = ¢ ri ae
Ts + 5 ‘ee = :
“7 ia bp 3 7 Lo — pe
oo 5 . 7 a sae we P - ’ *
ss a os

=

24 [ Doc. No. 146. ]

D.
COTTON, RAW.

Exports of cotton from— [10] [11]

1 1
United States.! Egypt and| Brazil. | India. |WestIndies.| Spanish | Elsewhere.

‘Turkey. America.
2 Ibs | Ibs Ibs, ibs. Ibs. Ibs.
1770 2,000 [3]
Millions. Millions. |Millions.|Millions.| Millions. | Millions.
1789 :
1790 us
1791 i : 20 ‘ 12 :
1792 4
1793 4
1794 ie : : : : 1
1795 BL : : 20
1796 6.5
1797 34
1798 Gi
1799 gi
1800 174
180! 20.9 : 24 30 17 -
1802 27k | (2) - : : 221
1803 4a.
1804 3831,
L805 AOL a ¥ 1
1806 740 |\ me
1807 662
i808 12
1809 532 |
1810 93-90
181] 621 ( 31 4 7 : | 13
1812 29
1813 192 |
1814 174
1815 83
1816 Sis |
1817 | 852
1818 924
1819 88
1820 1274
1821 124-2. bi | 28 50 9 - 6
1822 1447. Al
168) We ae
1824 1422" 14

1825 1761 eae 75

[ Doc. No. 146. ] 25

D—Continued.
COTTON, RAW.

Exports of cotton from—

United States.| Egypt and} Brazil. | India. |WestIndies.| Spanish | Elsewhere.
Turkey. America.
iS Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. | | Ibs,
Millions. Millions. |Millions.|Millions.| Millions. | Millions. | Millions.
1826 2044 |
1827 294 | |
1828 210
1829 2643 |
1830 298) i9 | 39 ‘|[5] 68 10 : 4
1831 277 202 | 37 70 ee 4
1832 3221 |
1833 | 324}
1834 384¢ 23 30 SO 8 7 Fs)
1835 3865
nM | py EBsa tee le | alll ely «| gu) ee ete 12

[1] ‘The exports of cotton, or, in other words, the foreign trade in raw
cotton, in the whole world, is small compared with the whole growth,
manufacture, and consumption of that article. It probably does not exceed
535 millions of pounds, and of that the United States export about 384 mil-
lions of pounds, or almost three-fourths. Our exports each year have not
always corresponded with that part of the crop of the previous year not con-
“sumed at home, as in 1808, 1812, &c. commercial restrictions and war
caused the stocks on hand to accumulate, and the high prices in some other

years have left much less on hand here than usual.

[2] Before 1802, the exports of cotton did not appear on the custom-
house books so as to show what was of foreign and what of domestic growth ;
and hence, before that year, and occasionally since, to 1825, one or two
millions.a year of our exports may have been the growth of India oer the
West Indies. Seybert’s Statistics, pages 152 and 257, and see table B, note
[4]. See when first begun, table F', note [9]. See amounts for some years,
Seybert, 152 and 4.

[3] From 1821 to 1824, inclusive, from Egypt. See Urquhart on Turkey,
page 179. "The amount is too high, if the bag or bale was computed as it
is now, at 218 pounds instead of 98, as formerly. No exports were from
Egypt before 1820: but previously the supplies in England were in a
considerable ratio from Smyrna and other parts of Turkey. See table F
and London Cyclopedia, article “Cotton,” and Edinburgh Encyclopedia,
“Cotton.” See table A, note [6]. Her exports for 1835, as well as 1834,
are said to be diminishing.

y
t

26 [ Doc. No. 146. ]

[4] A great part of this is from the northern provinces of Brazil, and in-
cludes most of her crop. See Walsh’s Travels in Brazil. From one-half
million to one million is exported from Rio and Bahia, From 1809 to 1813
from 50,000 to 75,000 bags, averaging 180 pounds each, were exported
from Maranham alone, and about two-thirds to three-fourths of it to Eing-
land, (1 Koster’s Travels, page 227). From Pernambuco, the exports of
raw cotton were, from 1808 to 1813, on the increase, from 26,877 bags to
65,327. See Koster’s Travels, page 146—note. See Smithers’s Tables in
History of Liv. The exports from Brazil were often formerly described to
be from Portugal, as she was a dependency, and as most of it was under
her colonial system shipped first to Portugal, and then re-exported. Little
or none was raised in the mother country. London Cyclop. art. “ Cotton.”

_ Coffee and sugar are taking the place of cotton in her exports.

[5] The exports for 1830 from all places except the United States, are
given partly from data in Pitkin’s Stat. 484, which show that from India to
all Europe in that year they were about 25 millions of pounds ; from Egypt
and the Levant about 18+ millions of pounds, and from Brazil and West
Indies about 49} millions of pounds. Due additions have been made to
these for exports elsewhere than to Europe.

[6] Of this from India, 60 millions of pounas were shipped from Bombay,
and most of the rest from Calcutta. Evid. on East Ind. Comp. pages 13
and 287, appendix, 1832, A.D. See 1 Milboum’s Orient. Com. [It is sup-
posed that the exports of cotton from India will increase rapidly as her trade
is more free since 1833, though less restricted than formerly since 1823. 1
Smith’s Com. Digest, page 15.

Most of the raw cotton of the India islands has been consumed where
raised, McCulloch, page 437. The quantities for all the years except
1805 and 1825, are estimates made by knowing the amount of exports to
Emgland and the United States, with those in some of the years to China.

In London Cyclopedia, article « Cotton,” the exports from India to China
alone, in 1818, are stated at 230 millions of pounds, which must be an
€rror, or all the other computations, as to both crops and exports, are much
too low in regard to India.

[7] The exports from the West Indies sometimes exceed their whole
€rop, as it is imported from the Spanish Main, and re-exported. See table
A, note [5]... Colquhoun, page 378, says sometimes double. In 1793 they
exported to England considerable cotton grown in the United States.
Smithers, page 156. See more on their exports, table A, note [5].

{8] The exports of cotton from Spanish America in 1802, were chiefly
from Vera Cruz, collected there from other places. 1 Dict’y of Span. Com.
and Finance, pages 63 to 69. From 1804 to 1810 about 5+ millions were
shipped from Venezuela yearly, (Mollier’s Travels in Colombia, 455—note,)
and half a million from New Granada. Ditto, 456—note. From Laguyra,
#0 1823, about one-fourth of a million exported. Hall’s Colombia, page 152.
Yn 1822, about one-half of a million exported from Caraccas, and 14 mill-
ions of pounds from all the Spanish provinces. 2 Hist. of Colombia, 1822.

‘The exports for 1834 are an estimate of my own.

Those for 1794 are from 4 Humboldt’s Personal Narrative, page 125—note,

[ Doc. No. 146. | 27

of which very nearly half was from Laguyra, (8 do. 192, 6 do. 202,) and
24 millions of pounds before the revolution, exported from Varagua, Mara-
caibo, and the Gulf of Cariaco.

See table F', note 9, as to the exports from English territories in America.
before the revolution, and which were probably grown in the West Indies
or Spanish America.

[9] Among the places not enumerated which have exported some cotton,
it is said in Montgomery’s Hist. of Brit. Col. page 604, that 14,900 pounds.
of raw cotton were exported from the river Gambia, in 1833.

In 1775 there was exported to Holland alone from Surinam one-eighth
ofa million of pounds. 2 Dict’y of Spanish Com. Smithers’s Hist. of Liv.

The countries more particularly included under “ Elsewhere,” though
not all, and about which much is known of their exports in cotton, are
Demarara and Berbice. See imports into England, table G. The data
as to exports from Brazil, West Indies, and “ Elsewhere,” in last column,
are chiefly the ascertained imports from those enumerated places into other
countries. From Naples and Spain some cotton was, in 1817, exported to
France. 2 Chaptal, page 6. But probably most of the growth of other
places. See table A, note [9].

{10] ‘The cost of exportation or freight from the United States to Europe,
is usually less than two cents per pound. Smithers, page 139. Hiven this
has been reduced by the improvements which mark the spirit of the age, as
the cotton is so pressed in the bales that it occupies less space in a vessel,
and the vessels in this trade are so constructed as to carry more when of
the same tonnage.

a 1] A small duty is imposed on it in England and France. Baines’s His.
317 and 515. Yet in 1769 it was made free to aid the manufacturer. 3
McPhers. Com. 447. But the duty on raw cotton is remitted or allowed
in drawback, on exportation of the manufactured article in England,
Pebrier says in his tables, in his work on England, though not if the raw
article is re-exported. 3 McPherson on Com. page 659. The duty was 6
per cent. ad valorem in England for some years before 1831 on foreign
cotton, then raised to 5s. 10d. per cwt. (1 Com. Dig. page 16, by Smith,)
and in 1833 reduced to 2s. 11d. per ewt. On cotton froma British posses-
sion, the duty is only 4d. per cewt. See McCulloch, page 440. But for-
merly, as in 1799, it was from 8s. 9d. per 100 pounds, to 12s. 6d. from
different places; and from 1803 to 1815, from 16s. 10d. to 33s. 10d. See
a table in Edinb. Encyclop. article “ Cotton.”

The duty in the United States on foreign cotton imported here is, and.
always has remained since 1790, at 3 cents per pound. ‘Though Mr. Ha-
milton recommended its reduction in 1791, to aid our manufactures. See
Rep. Dec. 30, 1791.

The duty in France varies, under various circumstances, from 10 to 16
Masih tis See McCulloch, page 639, “Havre,” and 2 Com. Dig. 73, by

mith.

There is said to be no duty on raw cotton in Switzerland. In England,
in 1833, it is stated to be 3 farthings per pound, or 10 per cent. West.
Rev. for April, ’33.

28 [ Doc. No. 146. |

E.
COTTON, RAW.

Exports of cotton from— Py
en Z 3
: & 5 8
; od G q.g &
a 4 ej : E se | 2% 5
5 é Bit fo rm se | Ss Siti |
8 o 2 | 8 Og |. 32 2
4 wi < c Z as Fe =
a
s Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. Ibs. Dollars.
|
e4 Millions. | Millions. |Millions.|Millions.| Millions. | Millions. | Millions.
/
1790 i 2 of .} ea f ss 48 , 285
1791 k By i" 2 x & bs 52,000
1792 s fi i 2 ie G i 51,470
1793 ‘s Fe i * a a é 160,000
Millions.
1794 iP ¥ ¥ ‘ E a lhe £ i
1795 if ol K 23
1796 , bee. cael r 5 t 5 2.2.
1797 x = i d sy ei Bs ly
1798 a o ie Z ik “a ct 33
1799 8 S a fe és js 43
1800 ka ig wpa 3 = 5 = 5
1801 } a 1 | Eh 3} Ef Le Me gute
1802 x) | ae = z = a -- 5y
1803 x a x = 3 i e 73
1804 x Bu ge z . af g 73
1805 a x z i x i B 92
1806 ay reeey s £ a = = = 83
1807 ss a 4 * < a = 143
1808 a a fc z £ is a 2)
1809 ae a | ea Le = wy 0 81
1810 5 hint 40 af 20 10 15 4 154
1811 che a, ot 4 F zs 4 2 On
1812 uu ie at ea = ee a 3
1813 a = a uf x ul a p23
1814 r f os x z f : Q3
1815 BS a | a “3 i a = 172
1816 Seer" | a m S E a if 241
1817 2 fi M S zh = e 224
1818 a if if i 4 2 2 3L
1819 i a ¥ 3 2 a us 21
1820 30 37 8 25 28 6 3 224
1821 m ae Ss il 8 is is 201
1822 nf ts te a it A s 2
1823 ak ns es Ae x i at 232
1824 a te eS is a gay = 212
1825 a Bt is a 2 ui as 382
1826 ay pil bis = = ot £ 25
1827 i ne we es a ms es oF
1828 fe ane iy z a — ta 222
1829 ey ug 4 ea) ae " 2 26%
1830 1203 55% 24 49 3770 i 2 293
1831 bs 5 x q " a a 254
1832 ms be i is sai e aa “3Bli
1833 a nt & h ne J Al 36
1834 164 673 513 563 302 1k 3 er 491
1835 ae = fs is 2 es if —«G1L
0) [2] [3]

[ Doc. No. 146. ] 29

[1] The exports from each State are the foreign ones, and for 1830 and
1834, from official data ; but prior to that they are estimates from the crop,
consumption at home, &e.

See table F’, note [6], as to some exports before the revolution.

The first cotton supposed to be of American growth, brought to New
York city, for foreign export, it is said, came from Savannah in 1792, and
consisted of only two bags. ‘The amount of exports coastwise has not
been ascertained, for reasons stated in the report. ‘Those for foreign coun-
tries from any particular State often include more than the crop of that
State, as from New York, which raises no cotton, and from Louisiana
which raises but a small part of her exports. See table B, note 1.

[2] ‘The portion exported of sea island cotton, was, in 1834, 8,085,935
pounds, and in 1835, was 7,752,736 ; and was chiefly from South Carolina
and Georgia. See official returns.

Its cultivation was, as remarked in a former table, introduced into South

y]
Carolina as early as 1787, from Bahama, and the export of it during the
last 20 years has been on an average not far from S millions of pounds.
it may be cultivated more extensively, it is supposed, in Florida. See prices
in table C and notes, and B, note 3.

It is now exported chiefly to England, say seven-ninths, over one-ninth to
France, and the rest elsewhere. Sce McCulloch, page 440. It has taken

”)
the place of the fine cottons formerly from the isle of Bourbon.

See a table of exports of it from 1802 to 1816, inclusive, going in some
years to nearly 10 millions of pounds, and to others short of one million :
but, as before named, being generally about 8 millions of pounds. Seyb. Stat.

Ne ; ss y P y
pages 152 and 4.

[3] The value has been computed from the quantity and average price:
through each year, so far as obtainable from official data.

In Seyb. Stat. page 147, is a table gf the values from 1803 to 1817,
inclusive.

30

[ Doc. No. 146. ]

B.
COTTON, RAW.

: Exports of, to what places.

i ey 3 |»
fe 3 = eS = g
g a MM Sale alee es | oe
— S 3 Se Parse th ‘
3 Bi loner od |. Sal tare Sores eee
E SB woilici | at, | eetdiet hy dle’ oe 2 este eae lies
: eu Secs 3] re) a oo] oo] oc bo
. (SF oe em 2 se bee ee ene
= bes o ot ra oe » — =
a ma = Bhs ae Ss Bods ahi Boa 2 -
ine Biv ibBs |H | a deoget Bal Bele hee ble
E Te le) Sam mea ry
< Ibs, Ibs. Ibs. | Ibs. } Ibs. Ibs. lbs. | Ibs. | Ibs. | lbs Ibs.
& | a (sae ies eee
jue 2,000} [9] Millions.) Mil’. Mil’ Mil’ Mil’s. ming
ee ie Sih il a 2 ST Sali 4
1789 | Ratio of | Afitlions. |Mil’s.| Mal’s.| Mil’s| Ratio of | patio [8]
1790 Gar us. Foie is
oN rom braz,. >
eg x BF lade—clenrk elnino cee
Vf sev
ee rb = aT at Weetlede ti hi. 5
( 225 - —-} —-]| = + +
[AC ae c SS oP a te 1
5 ae i Mi a Mi aa Se
706) 3 x Bogs” a a Aa
Alas | Ggpindped AE |. Cakicd od
1798 2 xy lio'2 i a 4
1799 2 is meal fi, 3 ot lee
Ss.
ene Millions.
16 ‘: Se eee eee"
isu! | 19 Bot. BAS dy OMe dae
1802 | 23} 2a lS 3) ae a tal
1803 | 273 ae er aa ae oe
1804 | 253 6 ig} 24 i bag
=| age Pde oe ae
1805 | 324 Ad ale A ids | a) + a
1806 | 241 ot 2 a a
1807 | 534 CT aia ap es ee |
3 Fl % ‘
i 808 a 2 =| 85 - aa 5
mole) = |=") 2] Flay |
pel a Mw; rm 1 he,
1811 | 463 e 1. pag RRS Os oe
1812 | 26 FE hae pe ae lean d
ee ier Oe 8 |e Lined
) 3 -
Petts a a i Wa
1815 45% “71 "IS A ee tg a
1816 | 57% LS Ne le gee | ae
Sty.) Bay 436 at) eee
1818 | 581 a 2 as a
1819 | 513 | Bae ak el |
Fi 52 \ (

[ Doc. No. 146. ] 3k
F—Continued.
COTTON, RAW.

Exports of, to what places.

|

j u 3 rs ° °
3 Seis op ee aes | ees
SI £ tt! id ee 5 | °S|/ S3i 2a] 8t
fx) oy GO| ‘wo a= ey Ee Eat BS EA 2 as
3 SPE Py etal Pome 1 ota aes BE SIE) is
b ee eee ie Oe Waa Sw a
se aS | Se SO ie) i Boil gh onpiek aloen te eee
k Ibs. | Ibs | bs. | tbs. | Ibs. | ths. | Ibs. | ths. | tbs. | tbs | tbs
E || |}
1820 | Millions. |Mil’s. 1 Mil’s. (one Mil’s.| Mil’s. arta Mil’s. or
i ri = ¢ . ¢ 8 zl ul cg OL
i821! 934 6300 — | AOL We ar eatin, ee aie
1822 | 101 2} All — | 242 |102 oe 2.
1823 | 1422 stl a5), | 23k. \.7 LD Pe iekeeell ie
1824 | 92 LEDGER cube osn ibe A/F) nie
1825 | 140 23; 204, —|° 33 |8 | - 19 | - | 7%
1826 | 131 Beste, aces) AS 1 Ogi
1827 | 217 11 20 eee Fe] awa BP ee
1828 | 1512 101} 32325 | 29 |6 | -|7 | -|
1829 | 157 23/25 qu.) 29 | 42] -|6 | -| 138
1830 | 211 132) (ee) VRS Nig te etek a1 iG FA
1831 | 2054 G Goa 662i gale tee | Sil 8 (meee ee
1832 | 2174 16/35/58} 20 |2 |32|9 | BE) 22
1833 | 2273 OL) senl./ toes bo. | Hen amie: Ses
1834 | 2663 20 nse AO” IB A | A a O7
1835 | 252 163} 421 (qu.)) 25 | 52 | — | 93
we ar By al] 8) | | Gn
{ |

{1} The exports to England from different places are given chiefly frona
Marshall’s tables, page 110; London Cyclop. article “Cotton.” As te
these from the United States, since 1820, see our own commercial tables.
A slight difference sometimes occurs from a reference by some te the ex-
ports to Liverpool alone, or to England alone, not including Scotland er
Treland. The exports from the United States to them all were,

Year. ~ Muil’s of lbs. Year. Mull’s of lis.
1834 ‘ ; ie | i834 : : 284
1832 ! : 228 1835 : : 2693,
1833 238) |

_ See Porter’s official tables, page 125. Those for 1817, from India te
‘England, are from Rees’s Cyclop. article “ United States,” in a note. They

32 [ Doc. No. 146. ]

are believed to be too high. ‘The quantities are given in pounds, where
ascertainable with accuracy, and where not so, the proportions are stated
from table G, which are founded on the imports into England, from the
United States and other countries. (See Marshall, page 110, and Smithers,
page 146.) ‘The actual quantities exported from the United States to all
Great Britain, before 1800, cannot be obtained by me; but the number of
bales to. Liverpool alone, can be, and, as a matter of some curiosity, are
annexed : 1791, 64; 1792, "503; 1793 , 111; 1794, 348; 1795, 2,147 ; 2796,
4,668 ; 1797, 5, 193; 1798, 12,163 ; 1799, 13, 236 ; 1800, 24,138. See
more in books cited.

[2] The exports from the United States to England and France, are
sometimes taken from their official reports of im} ports, and sometimes from
ours of exports, occasionally differing a little by losses at sea, imperfect

returns, and in the former,
The proportions are given in a few
uncertain, on the principle in table G.
But the quantities given for 1834 and 1835, are from our own returns.

For 1813 and ’L

not always including Scotland and Ireland.
cases where the exact quantity was
4, see that table.

In

respect to the other places to which our exports go, a statement is annexed,
giving the details since 1820, while our returns have been made up ac-
curately and in more detail.

STATEMENT of the quantity of Cotton exported from the L

Tnited Slates to ether places, than
Great Britain and Erance, in the year ending September 30, 1821, to 1835, inclusive.

5 To Russia.| Holland Spain. |Spanish| Trieste. Hanse |} Italy and | All other
~ & Belgium. Idee Towns. Malta. places.
Pounds. | Pounds. | Pounds. | Pounds.| Pounds. | Pounds. | Pounds. | Pounds.
1821} 304,680 /4,186,096 | 284,832 772,296| 34,976 | 748,110 | 997,904 [2,506,777
1822! 713,789 |1.970,258 445,964 | 210,138 {2,955,581 11,956,253 | 450,762
1823) 309,678 4,650,548 “3 = 177i 759 |2,356,594 | 217,663 | 833,332
1824 ce ,645 | 432,976 we 3,853 = 292, 852 = 227 529
1825) 133 934 | RONEN * = 577,109 980 | 509, 031
1826 ae "262 4,592,439 3 a 33,311 |2,012.679 s 1,820,116
1827 147,101 | 15,861, 400 7,990 | 183, 204 |3,389,514 | 148,170 |1,440,547
1828, 649,791 3,780,988 eh Oe 980,354 13,386,108 | 407,068 11,072,448
1829| 227,883 9,595,337 2 es 4,071,247 |6 ,857,796 1,056 ,387 |1, 261,925
1830) .111,376 |8 561,193 | 32,210! _ 2,814,477 |4,193,047 | 235,265 | 638,877
1831] 761,735 | 972,659 | 555,098 | _ 2,778;858 |27416'765 | 305,695 |2,243-741
1832, 838,951 |3,920,016 |2,283,875 | _ {1,654,775 |4/075,122 | 580,974 |2,250, 190
1833 1,447,405 (2,673,253 | 758,216) _ ‘11,107,600 |1,870,620 u 1,759,615
1834/1,269,494 6,096,462 | 892,967} _ — |3805°312 [6,612,895 | 190,842 11,153,382
1835 974,801 5,694,358 | 878,219 4 4,943,061 |2,788,147 12,952 |1,493, 760

[3] The exports to England from other places than the United States for
1834 and 5, are from the last annual report, in January, 1836, at Liver-
port it is said, in Smithers’s History of Liverpool, page 124, that the first

imports from india were in 1798, and proved to be very profitable; but
they began five or six years earlier to London, if not to Liverpool. See
table G, and notes, and same page in Smithers,éthat Surats were imported
in 1783; in page 125, he says, that 53} millions of pounds in one of the
late years, being then 1824, were shipped from Calcutta to isngland, but
the official tables are lower.

Win [ Doc. No. 146. ] =

4) Of the eo cts from India to China, in 1828, over 12} millions of
pounds were from Calcutta alone. Evidence on Hast India Com pany,
_page 13, 1852. For 1834, see Baines’s ELStny “page 32, which .is
» too low. For other years except 1831 and ’2, see 1 Milbourne’s Oriental
Comm. page 281. ‘The cotton trade to China began in the last Half century,
or about 1787, and the reasons for it are stated in table A, note 9. The
exports for 1831 and 2, are from McCulloch, pages 237 aud 8. China has
raised and manuiactured auieg since the 13th ce entury, ti ough: less since
1787. See table A, note 9 9. In London Cyclop. article « Cotton,” it is said,
that in 1818, bent 230 millions of pounds were exported from India to
China; but it is probably an error. In supplement to Ency rclop. Brit. art.
“Cotton,” 1¢ is supposed to be one-half what had been ye “arly consumed in
England, (1824) or 50 to 60 millions of pounds, which is higher than
Milbourne, but it agrees substantially with MeC ‘ulloch, whose statement
is from official returns; it is the greatest article of trade from India io
China, except opium. See McCulloch, page 236;.3 Crawford, Hist. of Ind.
Ar. 350.

[5] "he exports from Brazil to Hugland, began in 1781. Sm a ers’s Hust.
of Liverpool, 124, and are often included till 1868, under the head of Por-

tugal. Smithers, 146. Sec table D.

[6] "fhe exports from Egypt alone to Kngland, it is said, did not com-
mencee tll 1823, (Smithers's ‘Hist. page 136,) and c consisted af 2,168 bags, or
short of one-quarter oft a millon of pounds, as their bags’ then weighed.
See London C 'yclop. article “Cotton,” which says, that be afore 1790, nearly
S or 7 millions of pounds yearly, were exported to England from Smyrna.

[7| Under West Indies, the years 1834 and 5, include Demarara, and
elsewhere, not enumerated, as they are not discriminated in the i ust annual
report at Liverpool, which is the authority.

[8] ‘Poe exports of 1787, from “all other places” to England, include 12
million of pounds from Demarara and Berbice.

[9] The exports in 1776, were from the then provinces of New York, 3
bales; from Virginia, four bags; and from North Carolina, 3 barrels.
Smithers’s History, page 153. “Tt was probably ail of foreign growth, 1. e.
of the pana Main, or of the West Indies, as wi iS, it is presumed most,
if not all, of the eg ht bags from “America,” seized in 178 4. Smithers’s
Hist. 124 and 156. See table B, note. First exports of cur own cotton

were in small packages from the United States, called “pockets.” Simithers’s
VBst. 133.

It would seem, tha late as 1794, Mr. Jay, when making the treaty with Eng-
land, was not aware that any cotton was exported from the United States.
in Seyb. Stat. page 92, it is said, that the first export of cotton of our own
erowth took’ place in 17 91. ‘don table B, note 4.

OO Sade

34

[ Doc. No. 146. ]

G.

COTTON, RAW.

Imports of
z
a
z
3 lbs.
al
Millions.
LOPE. on
- 1710 ae
1720 2
17804; 14
a
1751 3
1764| 34,
1766 3
1780 5
ASA) LT
EIBG A) 22
1789 | 32}
1790| 314
1791 | 283
1VS2| 35
£793; , 19
1794| 244
1795| 264
1796, 35
Os. 235
1798| 312
1799| 434
1800 | 56
1801 | 56
1802| 604
1803 | 534
1804] 613
1805 ee
1806 | 581
1807 | 75
1808| 434
1809| 923
1810] 1324
1sli} 914
1812] 63

Where from.
\

|

a i 2 =
o D> ive)
A =e ro =| 3
oe Sg Gis rt
rs 3 Be = a =
2 Fa Plas z a= Sg S
Sg iS oO” e Fis} as g
=) aa] Ad = Qe Si oe)
| lbs lbs. Ibs lbs. lbs."
Millions. | Millions. | Millions. | Millions. Millions-
ni ZF 2 “9
Ratio Ratio. Ratio. Ratio. Ratio. Ratio. | Ratio.
1 on L
T00 3 3 - $
5 x 7 a — ze
a tL we 1 1 a
B2Qs + Py <a 2S 8
ae 2 ~ Ag 1 1
718 & 2 es 100 13
auliss 2 — ah 1 1
25 5 2 ey T00 aa
dt IS pet 2 1 1
Ti 3 37 5 a at a)
Age : Bae gil 1 1
71 2 19 3) oF aaa oar
ay 2 aig A 1 1
6 5 14 3 x9 15 2e5
ifs i 2 | 3 1 1
9 Th li ¢ 74 = o ray
1 a Zz Xd 1 1
4 5 9 3 —— 9 TT.
4 7 Ba. 2 a. 1
13 7 4 aT 3 33
3 "y 1 Dr ml 1
q 17 6 20 T3s
4 2y oe 5 1 1
70 10 30 Io
al 2 4 ae rae 1 1
} 122, 26 T6
3 2 one iy 1 : et
5 9 11 10 in 200 G) 38
3 2 =e a 1 1
5 oS 10 9 a ay Py RT
x 1 Ales bl. a be 1 1
18 g ‘Tait 20 a1 6:
ey | = fe be: 2 1 1
Bey Mend j 14 9 ra 8 2a
& ad i fi 1 4
| g 8 ri Ts a0
2. | if Be ts “3 &, 1
Sie vail 4 15 ié ae
eh yt 2 H 1 1
9 | 7 o 29 7 76
ay: 2 t H 1
ice & o 23 a

«|
©

[ Doc. No. 146. ] 35

G—Continued.
COTTON, RAW.

$$$

Imports of Where frem.
we oF na e be es t
eI a a2 = as) 3
& n ae = = xh Ay
so at uo Lal me 4 i=")
on 2 QR 2A i724 od 3 be
Oo s= 8 =a 6 Sa “ 2
= q HY oS i> as) a
5 5 6a Ag 5 me e 5
wo
« Ib lbs ibs lbs. lbs Ibs lbs. lbs
~
Miullions.
Ratio, Ratio. Ratio. Ratio. Ratio. Ratio..} Ratio.
1813 | 51 4 3 7 ae 2 = an
1814| 732 2 : is 5 3 e a
1816 6. 2 2 14. 3S — — ay
1817 | 1261 4 5 ct ht a i a
1818 es 7 a ao 3 ai $
1819 | 1374 4 4 a. in ~ | = i
Wf 4
1820 | 147 Seu ag Be te ihn eke ta me ee
1821 | 1264 5 i i SEO S We, weak Meas
Hj 6 46 aa Lt 14 13@
1822 | 1414 ES 1 al 1 me za) 1
18 Oe mahi okt peck cim et a ON
23 | 1833 3 8 72 32 T43 12 TE
1824 | 1474 3 i te er inal iy
1825 | 2443 ie * ete :
1826 Les =“ 17 40 Te 9 $
182 ee % a7 a5 3 73 oy
1828 | 222} 1 zs ee geet
1829 aah A 3 7 : 38 20 4
1830 | 259% pF A ie = ne ob iy
(Q2 a We cd 1
3 KS = 30 8
€ =)
1833 | 288 $ | oa s Lay 4
Se aa de ahs rae baee
9
3 a
9 x 3
1885 | 361k |. 2 | ay ‘ L

zal
(ee)
(ass)
Ww
bQ} ne}
(eee)
as
|
it
cots
©.
a
Ola
ened

[4]

carom
—
— =
oh pas Fp pe
Led
pe
foe.
Or
ood

[1] For the early imports of cotton into England,see more in Baine’s, 346;
McCulloch, 438; and Seyb. Stat. 92, note. In 1787 the imports set down
as from Turkey and Egypt, were entirely from the former, Smyrna, Greece,
&c. and none from the last until 1820 and 1823, and since that mostly
from Eeypt. The “other places” were chiefly French and Spanish colo-
nies in 1787; but include India and ‘Turkey where those columns are

26°) [ Doc. No. 146. ]

blank. See a table in Smithers’s History, page 146. The early imports of
Taw cotton, after the manufacture mereased much in England, were from
the West Indies, Surinam, and isle of Bourbon. Smithers’s History of
Liverpool, 123. Those from Brazil, &e. in 1824. See in Smithers, page
454.

[2] The proportions are given from the imports into Liverpool alone;
but will not vary much for the whole kingdom. They are staied in the
present form to aid in the comparison, at different periods in the same, and
different countries. "The fractions are very near the true proportion, but
occasionally are the next highest or lowest to the exact sum for convenience

in calculation, as is the case in fractions often in all these tables. See Mar-
shail, page 110; Sinithers, 147,

[3] The whole Imports into England, Scotland and freland, are included
In the above column; as some of the writers discriminate between those
into England alone, and some do not. See Porier’s Official tables, 125:
MeCulloch, 439, See a table in Smithers sage 146; making the iinports
into Ireland one to two millions of pounds yearly, after trom 1791 to 1817.
ta Baines, the quantities often differ a few millions, and are Iieher in most
cases. See also Edinburgh Review, page 19, (1827). . The usual quantity
imported into Ireland and Scotland, as contradistingnished from England,
has been, during the last ten years, akout 10'to 15 millions of pounds per
annum, it is believed, In 1834, it was about 20 millions of pounds: in
1835, it was about 18 millions of pounds. Most of that used in Ireland is
believed to be te-exported from England, or included in Enelish imports ;
and no separate tables have been kept of Trish lmporis since 1825, when
those of cotton exceeded 6% millions of pounds, Baines’s History, page 430.
The largest amounts {or 1834 and 1835 are taken from the Liverpool re-
ports of January, 1836; and the smaller ones, 1 the second lines, from
other sources of not so recent date,

[4] Most of the above ratios from India, between 1793 and 1£09, corres-
pond with 1 Milbourne’s Orient. Com. page 281, and Inay differ some from
the tables as to Liverpool imports alone.

[5] The imports from the the United States in 1792, 1793, &c. were
Said to be chiefly through the British West Indies. Smithers, 157. Our
ratio, it will be seen by the sums in the second line for 1834 and 1835, will
vary as the English accounts differ concerning the whole actual or esti.
mated amount of her yearly imports,

Se ee eee

tines

Yeats.

1739
1739

1791
1792
793
L794
1795
1798
L797
1798
1799
18690
LSOL
1892
I893
1804
1805
1806
1887
1808
1899
1810
1811
18i2
1813
1814
18i5
L816
1817
1818
i8t9
1820
. R21
18232

1823 |

1824
1825
1826
182 27
123
1829

. 1830
1931
1832
1833
1834
1835
[4]

[ Doe. No. 146. ]

37

; vi H.—COTFON, RAW
: Oia ; p] A . e
Imports of | Where From. Imports of
na ‘ge a) ems \ (ean
Sh o., at = | i
n ad an CS : =
& A 3s Rg ae ' oj =
3 8 = a Ree o =I S aire
g 8 Ee aa aS ON lion ied ‘3 Ps
| a ig = Ses On o. aS i fo oe) > 3
cS ‘ Oo en Mice. R a>
= a} a ro eet Z A 3 =
—E o fay Ws), DN ~2 { je} = Qi
fe) = > mies ies ° | a= a, 2
2 s 20 ss oae sey a) ed &
rea a fe S any |
bs. Ibs. lbs. [= Ib Ibs." |? s1bsy2, 4+ Hs: Ibs
aa ae | a ae
|
Millions. | Millions. Millions. Millions.| Millions.{Millions. Miilions |Millions.
| | : |
eye ee sr) ines | ees ee Ce eure ee
i ‘ } , }
| | IMiantions.
| - ic ne = = ‘. ' bre x at
| e i 3 }
| =e aaa = Ay ae oh i KZ a0 ) :
Pag ee Ses oe di 4 Seuee i 24
us ~ 2 rie he ia - ea 4
| 5 Ay
- 2 ss = - ES gale eS = ob
BG Pe a _ ae aa = us OF
| 9
im = = = * = | = | - | on
| 4z
i By Aa gt ge Zh a aga CE 4t
a i = a «
- 2 | SAFON ee = | pe ut! 3h
= A Ht Ns | — Me = | Qh | uk 3
BS Bee Seen 5 ala i a z 3h
- Bids f By fe - diy 2 ena = Or
ES wi oy | 3 | OF OL
wh LO J 2s | — — = | Kid Pay
sae 6 Er: | a, oe A 2 f, 33
cs. 2 cana if as = ait olay eae
| |
= = - | = om ~ me \ — 2
me | {
v3) ex \ iy) itt a - me = us =
i 1 | | Z
= a hy al = staal = rat Oi ae :
' | =
= =- | - | - = | - - - 2
| _ Lue i} -} —_ — | 2H —- | =_— 12 ¥
3 ! | 1
=< 1 4 a _ = | a | — | a 6
|
o | I i
a 20 = is or | x a | a 6
; |
= ts ay \ as pe | sey = | <= 4
= as | | ' » | 3
= | = 7 ] ag 1} = |
= x. | et | aL ah } as Ne | ne eta | 1s
eet uy | sn ss sar ieeh os ae - 15
Aan = | Saal - 3 ba ea oh = 1
ATs QT es aes vi 6 Seog es a
GL 213 i oh j fe = = | - pm | 3
| ih 25° aes | aie = = | a H - $
Pe A t |
\. Bs 404 4 « SR fsa se | s z
Gi: 30 a ES ee eee es = | 2
95 624 aa = Ms a By: :
87 704 2 Z raph WEES Ee 2 = 1
613 53h a if e ui ma eked hay:
ce ean YE i z. iP Mn aN ae
i842 to 91} HY 6 7 38 tbs EMSS leh i
ig94 to 61 |. 46 to 50 7% 3h 39 184 \38 to 68 2
77 to 83.) 43 to 77s]. 84 a 48 192 te _69 3
9h 764 us a 36 19 = = 3
83 to 943) 78 to 814). 7 4 Eh 19} 2 45 z
o4y 91 a = os 13
[2 | [4]

[8] [9]

Ny

38 [ Doc. No. 146. |

[1] The value of the imports of raw cotton into each country it has not
been deemed necessary to give in detail, as the quantity, and the prices in
the United States and Liverpool, with those in India, and some other
places occasionally, are presented, and will enable any person easily to
make a computation of the whole value of the imports into any particular
country.

[2] The imports into any country during any particular year, sometimes
fall short of the actual consumption in that year, if a large stock from any
particular cause be on hand at the begining, or a very small stock at the
end of the year. The whole amount imported into any place, and the
amount from each country, differ a little occasionally, by mistakes in copy-
ing or misprints probably. For imports of 1820 and 1821, into France,
see Quarterly Review, (1824-5). For those of 1834, see tables of French
Com. for’34; and for 1810, Edinburgh Review, page 61, (1829) which states,
those for 1828-9, at 80 or 90 millions of pounds; for 1806, see London
Cyclop. article “Cotton.” Baines, 515. From 1822 to 1832, see a table
in McCulloch’s Dict. page 448, which is given below in bags. In1819, in
vol. 3, Dict. of Com. and Finance for Spain, page 244, the value of im-
ports of raw cotton is estimated at only $2,000,000, into France, but it
must be too low. ‘Those for 1833, and the smallest for 1834 and for 1835,
are from manuscript. Annexed are the quantities in bales, and the stocks
on hand each year, from 1822 to 1835 inclusive, from another and similar
source, as to the three last years; the previous ones are from McCulloch.
See table 'P, nete [2], as to stocks on hand in England.

Statement of the general imports and stocks of Cotton in France in
1835, compared with those of the thirteen preceding years:

Years. : Imports. Stocks, Dec. 31.
1822 : bales 205,861 : : 42,545
1823 : « 169,845 E : 4,078
1824 E & 951 074 2 : 47.194
1825 : « 204572 : : 35,306
1826 : «320,174 ' : 74,479
1827 - He 29{ 617 - - 85,403
1828 : « 206,132 2 : 51,812
1829 « 942 230 ; 2 29 292
1830 . « 989.752 E i 61,260
1831 - “6 218,393 - - 35,810
1832 : « 959.159 : : 22 506
1833 : « 305,633 : : 51,753
1834 - 6 274,307 - - 24,407
fesaste ut « * 394 495 : : 40,096

[5] See Pitkins’s Stat. page 485.

[4] Those for Saxony, Prussia, and Trieste, are given from Pitkins’s
Statistics, 485. About one-third comes from the United States, and some
of it through France and Holland; from Brazil and the West Indies, one-
fourth; from Egypt and 'Turkey, one-fifth; and from India, one-fourth. See
note 8, below, and McCulloch’s Dict. 442. In Saxony and Prussia, the

[ Doc. No. 146. | a

manufacture of cotton cloth is considerable, but is chiefly from English
yarn. See exports of manufactures from England, and supplement to
Encyclop. Brittanica, article “cotton.” The spinning is slowly increasing
by machinery. In 1831 Prussia exported one-fourth more of cotton cloths
than in 1826, being 17 millions of yards. Blackwood’s Magazine, for
January, 1836.

[5] Of the imports into Switzerland, quite six millions pass in some
years through France. Genoa imported in 1830, two and one-half million ;
in 1831, four and one-tenth millions ; 1832, five and one-tenth. Half of this
probably goes to Switzerland, and nearly half the imports into Trieste. (See
below.) ‘Switzerland has long imported cotton, but it has chiefly been spun
by the distaff. Supplement to Encyclop. Brittanica, “Cotton.” See more
Westminster Review, for April, 1838.

6] Those into Spain were chiefly from provinces in America. 1 Dict.
of Fin. and Com.

[7] Except the large sum for 1831, and that for 1832, which are founded
on’a table in AicCulloch, the imports into China are computed from
other writers on the exports thither from India, with a small addition from
other places, chiefly islands. See tables Dand F, and 3 Crawford’s History.
Most of the exports from India go to China, except what went to the United
States formerly, and then and now to England. Table G. It is feared
that they are not usually stated high enough. Supplement to Encyclop.

Brit. “cotton.”

[8] The imports. into the United States are taken from official returns,
and have been very fluctuating in amount; they have come chiefly from
India. See Seybert, 92, where he says, that before 1825 we consumed two
millions of pounds of it yearly.. For a table of imports and exports of
foreign raw cotton, from 1800 to 1814, see Seyb. St. page 257.

[9] Other countries of Europe than those enumerated, import consider-
able quantities of raw cotton: e. &. Holland and Belgium, about 10 or 12
millions of pounds, of which, a part passes into Germany, and 5 or 6 mil-
lions of pounds is from the United States. So into Germany direct 1s im-
ported at Trieste alone, from the United States about 4 to 5 millions, and
some from Egypt and Turkey; in all, making in 1830, 12% million of
pounds; 1831, 19} million of pounds; and 1832, 253 million of pounds.
McCulloch, page 442. Into the Hanse towns are imported from here 2 to 6
millions of pounds more yearly, and about 1 million of pounds to Russia,
&c. &e. See exports, table f', note 2. Russia. imported into Petersburg,
in all, 1830, 24 million of pounds, 1831, seven-tenths million of pounds;
1822, one and eight-tenths million of pounds. In 1834, Belgium is said,
by Mr. Alexander, to have imported 123 million of pounds of raw cotton.
It is said in Westminster Review, for April, 1835, that Lombardy alone con-
sumes four million pounds of raw cotton yearly.

[ Doc. No. 146. ]

ai rt
COTTGN, RAW.

Quantity consumed and manufactured in F
SMG has. wish ecrana a 6 Ol ee
= ey Hw 3 g 3 &6 & a =
a 3 a eS Siaishe o g BE:
‘Sp : Sh eee ete ewe Bi dae
Fa 2 Bey yale ae We a |
in, | cv kK
ye]
o s S Is IS. bs.
iS Ib Ibs. lbs lt lbs lbs Ik
Millions./Millions.'Millions.|Millions, Millions.) Millions. | Mils
780 152 in the three countries, |
1784 thet '
1789
1790 363 ce 5
1791 28 16 52. |. S85 50 15 Q
1792 dat '
1793 74
1794 93
795 25 |
1796 31
1797 2o1
1788 31
1789 42 10+
1800 5k 62 8 eS
FOOL po S388 LL 9. | * 280 |’ 45 22 5
1802) 563- | 1523,
1803 Ble 152 me = Es “3
1804 662 17i
1805 Bea 183 Il [2] i
1886 574 213
1807 723
1808 4}2
1809 | 872
1810-} 4196 | 95 16 [33] |
1811 }892 | 93. | ty or 48 25 6
1812 592 2
1813 | |
1814 522 |
1815 92 eS 3ik |
1816 | 862 |
1817 | 1164 | 30 or 26 |
1818 | 172 | |
1819) |) 1392. | |
1820 | 149 | 44
1821 | 114 47 50 260 | ° 42 30 454s 8 7
1822 1202 6]
1823 | 177 | 503 |
1824 | 13] 75 ae aS e - é ey a
1825 | 206 60 | ne
1826 | 150} || 96 |
4827 | 2502 87 | | |
1828 | 268: 61 60
1829 1903 vies
1830 | 255 873
1831 | 257 653 77k |
1832 | 260 78°
1883 | 2842 87 80 to 85 949 35 36 49 10 -| 20 ‘
1884 | 297 8&0 [10]
835 3202 100 [9]
es Ee aa | a ay (5) | | rer} pe

¥ [ Doe. No. 1 146. ] 41

[A] Tt is important to bear in mind that dais table does not show the con-
| sumption | Oi mranufec fured cotton; but only the consumption and manu-
facture of cotton.in its razo state. “Hence it includes the qnantity of raw
{ cotton raised in any country and: noi exported, with the additional quan-
| tity imported and not re-exported, allowing the quantities on haned at the
commentement and termination of each ye éar to be similar. Most of the
quantities include what is used in all ways, and made in families as well as
in i tt also includes what is consumed in a raw state, which

is ealenlated to be, in England, aud jth. The whole consumption in
Ewurope,.in 1830, was about 387 millions of pounds, (Pitk. Stat. 484); or less
than the present exports of the United States. ‘The eopeumpiion in maanu-

factures of raw cotton in all Europe, in 1803, was estimated at ve 60
millions of pounds. Dictionary of Spanish Commerce; and in London
Cyclopedia, article ‘Cotton,’ cot oputed it only 18 millions of pounds j in all
Europe, except Eneand and France.. Till 1773 the warp in the web of
what.w on ci uled cotton cloth in Eneland was linen. McCulloch, 438.
i(See table A, note 9.) See below, note [12].

| uy Ang ep ye ; ir
[2] The above quantities for England ate generally taken trom Mar-
shall’s' ta cone S ich are copk ‘ and approved by Pitkin. But Porter, in

c ' . .
his tables. 3 the au antity y from 1820.to 1832, larger by 5 to 10 millions
‘of pound: 7

1

Tam: Par rt a the diflerence may arise from including

Ireland, and part by sometimes. locking only to the imports, and Ged GUC cting
the ue te-exnorted ;. when, in fact, the quantity on hand at the begin-
i

ning and sas of the year, or the actual quantity entered for home con-
sumption, was essentially different. About 10 to 20 millions of pounds
yearly, or oltell as a as 1. to A.th of what is imported is re-exported
\from | a ines, 347, and, in Marshall and Pitkin’s, schedules
of it. An es imi yy 1880, made in France, was ongy 241 millions of
pounds ; ang lin‘ Chimibe er rof Peers for 1834, was 320 millions of pounds;
and by 1 Smith’s Com. Dig. Les 16, for 1832, was 288 millions of pounds;
lwhile the Genel: of ti ciel rer in England, in his late speech,
sta tes the ¢

anti

quantity for home consumption in 1834 was 320 millions of “pounds,
and in 18 35, 3204 millions of pounds, ‘But by the annual Liverpool report in
february, 1836, and other sources, the consumption in 1835 is es timated.

higher than 1834 by 13% mullions c of pounds. Others put. 1834 at 303
millions m

of pounds, and 133 335 at 330 millions. In the Mdinburgh Review,
pace 433, (i832) a table is given from Freeman and Cook’s Com. of G. Brit.
from 1822 to 1831 ace sive, which is as follows: 1822, 144.3, m lions of
pounds; 1922, bee te) QA. LALLY s. TB25, or 1.3 1826; 1642; 1827;
Bt 128, 2178 1529, 22 33 1830 , 242 ; 1831, BOs: The con sump-

jon in Scotland separatety, and in part from ‘Enelish imports, exceeded in
(835, 32 millions of pounds. Since 1823, when changes occurred in the
luties, Ireland has made considerable cotton cloth; in 1825, quite 64 mil-
10s of yards. Put it was chiefly from yarn spun in England: (MeCul-
och, 444;) or from raw cotton exported there from England; which, from
1821 to 1825, inclusive, was from i4 to 24 millions of pounds per annum.
Jee tables on this in Smithers , 150 and 151. London Cyclopedia, article
“Cotton.” In sarne article see a table on imports and consumption, and
itock on hand, same years; at the close of 1823, in England, it was 92
nillions of pounds. See Liverpool annual report, where the stock en hand
itthe close of 1834 was 59% millions of pounds, and 1835 was 734 mil-

ions of pounds. In 1833 it was about 60 millions of pounds, and had

avs .
tg a
>

\ i i :
ever ce r ry yy ‘

42 [ Doc. No. 146. ]

diminished gradually since 1826, when it was 100 millions of pounds.
(Baines, page 318.) See table H, note 2.
{

[3] See on France, Baines, page 525. ‘But the quantity of imports is |
generally higher than consumption by 5 or 6 millions of pounds (unless the
stock on hand is very large when the last is sometimes highest); as, of late
years especially, France re- -exports to the neighbouring countries, by land,
S or 9 millions of pounds per annum, occasionally. (French Tables of
Commerce, page 156, for 1832-3.) About 7, of these re-exports are to
Switzerland, and the rest to Sardinia, Genoa, &c. As far back as 1789
France used but little cotton, except in household manufactures. Quar.
Rev. (1824-5) page 394. For 1815, see Baines, page 515, and for 1806
see London Cyclopedia, article “Cotton.” In the French Chamber of Peers
it was testified, that the consumption in 1834 was 50 millions of pounds.
In the Edinburgh Review, page 432, (1832) is a table of raw cotton con-
sumed yearly in France from 1822 to 1831, in which the quantity is
different from 1 to 10 or 12 millions in differen: years, some less and some
more, e. ¢

Years. M. lbs. | Years. M. lbs.
12S Sie eam <u Wt es |< eet
eer eR | ate Higa ee ci ON" en) oe a
Se Rh Whig yea a digegin. | te
[Lae es DGD Gees MEN Tce ORR ERS =
1826 - : - = 844 | 1831 - - - - (oo

Those in the table from 1798 to 1806, and 1817, are from Sup. to Ency.
Brit. “Cotton.” See table K, into what articles the cotton is made, com-
parative prices, &c.

[4] The large Primes for 1790, 1800 and 1805, in the United States
were made by tayself and the small ones, with that for 1815, are from a
report of a Committee of the House of Representatives, February 13, 1816.
That for 1810 is from Seybert’s Statistics, page 92, and includes what cot-
ton was used in household manufactures, as do my own. Mr. Gallatin
made a similar one for 1810. Pitkin, 487. Some estimates of earlier
date, probably did not include what was used in dwelling houses. Before
1825 we consumed often 2 millions of pounds a year, ofraw cotton grown
abroad, (Seyb. 257 and 92); and one-fourteenth cf the imp orts and crop in the
United States and England is used or consumed in its raw state without
being made into either yarn or cloth. Table H. In Coxe’s report on Man-
ufactures for 1810, he gives the manufactures of cotton in families at five
millions of delleas value, and number of yards 163} millions; which, at 50
cents, the worth of coarse cloth to each pound of cotton in it, would make
8 or 10 millions of pounds used. Coxe reports a few large manutfacto-
ries, but without any data to show their consumption of raw cotton; but
see table L, spindles, note. They probably used 6 to 8 millions of pounds
more. In the French Chamber of Peers the estimate was only 36 millions
of pounds consumed in the United States in 1854 (see below). "The whole
manufacture of cotton in the United States must be as large as the esti-
mate, though beyond the usual computation, if we look to the iuumber of
spindles,. and to the great household manufacture of it in the families of
the South and West, for all purposes.

[ Doc. No. 146. ] 43

Again it is to be deduced from the fact, that in the great cheapness and
healthfulness of cotton manufactures, our population consume each five to six
dollars worth of them yearly, for clothing, bedding, sails, &c. &c. which,

at a census of 14 millions, would be from 70 to 84 millions of dollars in
value. In England the consumption Is computed to be only a fraction less
than that, and in France it is $4 per head. In Belgium, Alexander com-
putes it at 20 franes, or a little over $33 per head. As we import from
England, France and Germany, about 7 millions of dollars of cotton man-
ufactures more than we export, and those articles are finer than our own, it
isa fair estimate, that we manufacture in this country, from 50 to 70 mil-
lions of dollars worth of cotton manufactures; which, at two pounds of
raw cotton or near it per dollar of manufactured cloth, on an average,
would, in all, equal about 100 millions of pounds or more of raw cotton’
manufactured here. -Of. this, about.5 to 20 millions of dollars worth are
made in domestic form; and 45 to 50 millions of dollars in factories in A.
_D. 1835.
In 1831, the convention in New York estimated that only 26 millions of
“dollars worth of yarn and cloth were made in manufactories; and in 1834,
Pitkin, page 484, estimated all manufactures of cotton in the United States
‘at 40 millions of dollars value yearly. This would require in 1831, as in
the table, about 77 millions of pounds of raw cotton, as estimated in the
_convention at New York, for manufactories in 12 States. See McCulloch,
448, who supposes it was a committee of Congress.
| As our population is increasing from 1830 ‘to 1940 at the rate of nearly
| 4 per cent. or quite 400,000 persous per annum, and as 10 to 12 pounds of
| raw cotton are required per head, and our imports of cotton naanufactures
do not increase, we must add yearly to our manufactures about A to 5 mil-
lions more of raw cotton. This would make an addition from the esti-
mate in 1830, so that the whole consumption would, in 1885, equal 100 mil-
lions of pounds of raw cotton. An intelligent merchant and manufacturer
| of the north thinks the consumption now is 106 millions of pounds. ‘The
quantity manufactured here in 1827 is estimated by Reuss, in his tables on
American Trade, at only 31 millions of pounds, and in 1528 at 36 millions
of pounds; but they must be too low, as are the usual estimates for the last
three or four years, at only 80 and 85 millions of pounds, or they must in-
clude only what was worked up in factories, and the former estimate not all
| of that. On the great consumption of cotton in household manufactures in
the United States, and the opinion entertained in 1791 on the importance
| and expectations of success in the establishment of manufactures by ma-
chinery, and its influence on the crowth of cotton in the United States, see
more in Hamilton’s report, A. D. 1791.

is manufactured there; and also that 50 millions of dollars worth of mus-
lins alone were yearly consumed there and in Africa. They were not all,
however, of- domestic manufacture, it is presumed.

In Egypt it has been estimated, that from 8 to 9 millions of pounds of
the crop of 1835 will be consumed in that country. See table A, note 9.

(
!
| [5]. See Urquhart on Turkey, page 150 and 179, that two pounds per head
f

\ — [6] This statement for Russia in 1924 is from Porter’s tables, 545; see
| Baines, 406. In the southwestern parts of Russia, bordering on Germany,

in Manufactories and machinery have been considerably introduced and yarn
\ ; é ? ’
' Whibone,

44 [ Doc. No. 146. ]

from England i is woven there, as in India and elsewhere, as well as raw
cotton, imported chiefly from the United States, either direct or through
the ports on the Baltic. See exports of raw cotton, table F, note. "A
few others have been established southeast of Moscow. See Lon. Cyclop.
article “Cotton,” and one cotton mill is in operation in St. Peter sburgh.

[7] Used up mostly into calicoes, tapes and galloons.. Spain in 1803. |
1 Dictionary of Spanish Commerce, 63; 3 do. 148; made 5,640,810 yards
of cotton cloth, 51,900 pair of cotton stockings, and 2, 686, 142 yards of tape,

[8] Th Puebla in Mexico, in 1803, were manufactured 14 millions of
pounds of raw cotton. (4 Dictionary ef Spanish Commerce, page 178.)
In Campeachy the manufactures are most extensive. 2 Hist. of Colombia.

[9] Among the other places is Switzerland, which, in 1831, consumed)
near 19 millions of pounds of raw cotton. Ba aines, 526; see imports.
That country began to use machinery for cotton in 1798, but the progress:
has been slow, and the establishments are small, th shied active. London,
Cyclop. article “Cotton.” Muslins have been made there, it is said, a cen-—
tury and a half. But beside England and France, the cotton spun in the
rest of Europe in 1823 was estimated at on ly 18 millions of pounds.
London Cyclop. article “Cotton.” See table K, note. In 1834, it was
estimated by Mr. Alexander, that Belgium cons uined 122 millions of pounds ;
of raw cotion. See table, exports of manufactures and notes.

[10] The statements for 1833, 1821, 1811, 1801, and 1791, are generally
computations made from other daiaas to the cro ps in the different countries
named, which were grown and not exported, and the quantities of raw cot-
tou imported into ex ach: beyond this, they are rather conjectures than esti-
mates, founded on® ery satisfactory facts.

. [11] Phe quantities computed tobe manufactured in India and China are-
very thos ir Bw perhaps, they are below rather than above the truth. See
Supplement to Ency. Brit article “Cotton,” and tables A and F on growth
of cotton and exports. In the Indian islands most of their raw cotton is
Jmade up, though a little is exported to China. 3 Crawford’s History, 350.

[12] A table is annexed of the consumption of raw cotton inall Europe,
from 183i to 1835, inclusive, compiled by Lambert & Co. of Liverpool,
and distinguist ing ‘the estim rated portion of it from this country.

Conswmption he cotton in Hurope, reduced to bales of 300 pounds.

1831, pees - 1,272,176, of which - 928,520 American.
1832, « - - 1,372,079, eee ~ 1,015,280
1883, - DL AGRI BB ie’ Sanna? Ve * "4 OGG Sag <
1834, “ - - 1,802,559, - - - 1,205,043 i
1835, “ - - 155813501, ty aye - 1,254,586

{| Boe. No. 146. ]

K.

45

r
.

i |

‘ |

~ + ry wie

‘
{

COTTON, MANUFACTURES OF.
*.
Whole value of, yeariy, in— Capital employed in manufacturing by
raachinery ia— [5]
England. | France. | United States.| England. France. | United States.
Has.) efhs(4l sti vit Sie sai
| |
| Dollars |. Dollars. Doilars. Dollars. Dollars. Dollars.
_ a Loe oe tes { wie aes ye
Miilions. Millions. Millions. Millions. Millions. Millions.
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| \
|
|
| |
|
' \
| ‘
{ fe
\
| |
|
95% | z | 2 i _ 40
e |
i 35 | |
|
|
|
72
155
148 to 190 |
i
| | | |
Vii | a x | 309 2
us 49 |
| ei il
i , 4 26 | oor 9 >
2 = Jaa «| oo. Bs 40% or 62
| U (40) 5 | | F
s a { 216 |
144 54 u ' 160 fe | 444
1738 | § 360)? 15 |
@ (149) ¢ a | 7 168 ey
Ga; a as 250 |
| “45 to 50 185 | 30

46 [ Doc. No. 146. ]

1] The values in England in the tables are taken, for 1834, from_
McCulloch and Aiken, Edin. Rev. 472, (1835,) and Baines, 412; for 1833,_
in 1st line, from Pebrier on Eng. page 314; for 2d line, for 1827, from”
Edin. Rev. page 22, (1827.) The first edition of McCulloch agreed with |
Pebrier, but in the second edition he lowered the amount. Baines, 398,
and note. That for 1823 was by Mr. Huskisson. Baines, 399. "That for —
1824 is from Supplement to Encyclop. Brit. “ Cotton.”. |

In McCulloch’s Dict’y of Com. and Baines, 406, and Pitkin, 486, it is,
computed that the present value of the cotton manufacture equals about _
twice the amount of it exported. It is said that only 37 per cent. is con,
sumed of what is made. Aiken’s Lectures. See exports. In 1766 Eng:
land made about three times as much as she exported of cotton goods,
though Edin. Rev. page 166, (1830,) says she then made only one million
of dollars worth. Do. page 18, (1827.) The estimate for 1815 is im
Edinb. Encyclop. art. “ Cotton.” The items for computing the value of
the annual manufacture, are given in Edin. Rev. (1827) page 22, and in
Edin. Rev. page 472, (1835,) and in Baines, 412.

In Scotland alone it is said the manufacture of cotton in 1835 equalled
in value 114 millions of dollars ; but in 1832, was estimated by Kennedy at
124, though prices higher ; and in Ireland at 13 millions of dollars. Baines,
409, thinks the exports are nearly that before-named from Scotland, and
the manufacture double. Page 410.

[2] The values in France for 1817 are too high, and that for 1828 too
low, it is believed ; but were extracted, the first from 2 Chaptal on French
Industry, page 150, and Sup. to Encyclop. Brit. “Cotton,” and the last from
some author not remembered. Estimated at 111 millions of dollars by
Minerel, but too high. Baines, 521.

Those for 1832 and 4 are estimates made on the number of spindles, &c.

[3] The value for 1830, in the United States, is from N. Y. Conven. and
includes but 12 States and no household goods, otherwise it would equal
AO millions. Pitkin, 483.

The whole value in 1835 is my estimate from the quantity of cotton
worked up, &c. Pitkin, 482.

The value for 1815 is by a Committee of Congress, and is confined to
goods made in factories. ‘The whole value of cotton, woollen and flax
manufactures in 1810, was computed at only 40 millions of dollars—the
value of cotton alone in 1830,

[4] The value of manufactured cottons, when the quantity of raw cotton
in them is the same, differs greatly according to different periods of time in
the same country, and according to the quality of the raw material, and the
machinery used, and the skill ermployed. See table M, note [2].

Thus in England, in 20 years after Arkright’s invention in spinning.
manufactured cottons fell nearly eigiit-ninths of their former price. Every
ten years since, some have computed their fall in price as equal to 50. per
cent. In the American Encyclopedia. article “Cotton,” it is said, that, from
1815 to 1829, the coarse cloths fell two thirds. See in Pebrier’s views of
England, page 343, a table showing the fall there at different periods. See
table M, note [3], on official aud real prices at different periods. In 1810,
yarn, on an average, was worth $1,125 per pound. ‘Report by Gallatin. See

[ Doc. No. 146. ] 47

prices of other articles im his report. In 1814 it was estimated under $1 per
pound by Cox. In 1832 it was said that the cost of making most species
of yarn had been reduced since 1812 about a half, and that of weaving b
power looms, &c. still more. See Edin. Rev. 427, (1832,) a list of prices.
Some of the differences as to the whole value of manufactured goods spring
from not adverting to all the fall in prices, though the yarn and cloth have
increased in quantity. See a table of reduction in prices of spinning. In
1786 it cost 10s. per pound of No. 100, in 1824 only 8d. or only 16 cents
instead of 240 cents. Supplement to Cyclop. Brit. “ Cotton.”

[5] 'Phe best cotton goods are supposed to be made in Switzerland, where
the skill and machinery are good, and the climate congenial. But the raw
material, being carried so far by land, is expensive, and the mantacturer
cannot compete with England, though 20 per cent. cheaper than in France.
Baines, 524.

In France many fine goods are made by skill and experience ; but the
machinery is poorer, and costs more. Edinb. Rev. page 61, (1829.) Hence
the prices in those two countries of the cloth made from a pound of raw
cotton, exceed on an average, 50 cents, while in England they are about
50 cents, and in the United States are now somewhat less. In 1806 the
cotton was made chiefly into velveteens, nankeens, crapes, muslins, &c.
See at length London Cyclop. art. “Cotton.”

But in 1810 our cotton cloths made in houses and manufactories, on an
average, were estimated at 33 cents per yard in Coxe’s Tables, page 10.
The prices are now lower, notwithstanding the introduction so extensively
of finer cloths and of printing calicoes.

We make more coarse and substantial cloths of cotton now than Eng-
land, and they can be afforded cheaper by two or three cents per yard. They
are in greater demand abroad. Am. Quart. Rev. (1834) page 256. 3 Par-
liamentary Reports, (1833) page 832. We put more staple into them, the
raw material being cheaper here. But the English laces, being made chiefly
of sea island cotton, with a very little silk, enhance the value of each pound
to over $5; and the whole manufacture of it equals nine millions of dollars
per annum, (McCulloch, page 744,) and 30} millions of square yards.

The coarse India cottons are made of the worst materials and less smooth,
being chiefly spun by hand, and the raw material poorer. Baines, But
the thread so spun is softer and the cloth more durable. Report on Affairs of
India, (1832,) appendix, page 310. But the power to spin a fine thread
there has been carried almost as far as in England. See table L, note [5).

ON CAPITAL.

[6] Capital invested is computed on very different principles and data by
different pérsons, and the price of machinery has of late fallen much per
spindle. See notes on spindles. In the computation of capital in- manu-

facturing cotton, there is generally included only what is in factories.

(7] The real capital has doubtless increased in England since 1827,
though in the table there is an apparent diminution. That and other dif-
ferences often arise from the estimates being made by different persons, and
on data somewhat unlike, as well as from changes in the value of ma-
chinery, and in its merease. — ir é

The computation for 1827 is by the Edin. Rev. page 22, 1827; that for
1830 is by some writer not noted; that for 1831 in Ist edition of

48 | Doc. No. 146. ]

McCulloch’s Dict’y, Pitk. Stat. 486, for 1833, by Pebrier, page 215, in Ist
line, and in 2d line by Baines, 415, and Fidin. Rey. pare ‘472, (1835 ,) and
24 edition of McCulloch’; and for 1834 by Aiken, who places buildings
and machinery, or the fixed capital at only about half the value of that in
Edin. Rev. (1827) page 22, or at about 97 millions of dcilars instead of 181
millions.

The ratio adopted fer 1827 was, capital in MIVns.

buying raw ue 3 - £ 9 millions, and for 18342 4

Capital in paying wages - - 19 ¢ ‘ 10
Capital in mills, machinery, looms, ;

shop, &e. - - sah Se . M 20

£65 « «ga

So Kennedy in Baines, 413, differs again, making fixed capital only about
15 million pounds, &c. The present vate of ca pital invested in buildings,
water privileges, and machinery, is often less than their original cost, and is
another source oi difierence.

8] The capital in 1815, for the United States, is compute od by a Comnnttee
of Congress, vand i isnotany too high. Report, Feb. 13, 1816. That in 1880 is
by the New York Convention 1, nud is correct accor. ding to the number of spin-
dies compared with 4 England an id I her capital, aud is in fact at 40 million del-
lars for fixtures alone, and about 2 2 millio: 1 dollars for the rest. Not too nigh.
That for 1832 is from Reuss on Am. "Trac i page 274. ‘The whole capital
here, in proportion to each spindle, is more 4 ee nulls and machinery tegether
than in Englaud, and more for W ages. Hers is sonietimes higher for addi-
tional machinery and workmen for finer kinds s of manufacture. ‘The average
value of her capital to each spindle, as computed by me for 1835, would be
about $20 to each; which would, on the same data, make our capital then
equal to $35 per spindle. But in the New York Convention, in L530, are
given the details of their estimates, and the buildings and machinery alone
cost here, on their computation, near $35 per spindie, and it requires to pay
wages, furnish raw cotton and other materials, superintendence, é&c. quite
$11 more ee spindle, making the whole $46 each, cr now near 80 million
dollars capital. In 1810, it was estimated that 560 per spindle was necessary.
See Coxe and Gallatin. It is now $60 in some pete at Lowell. "This
agrees nearly with the older computations in Kngland; and as goods become
finer, and machinery-still cheaper. in the United States, the approximation
will be still closer. See table cn note. But another striking cause of dif
ference arises from the kind of goods made here compared with England,
requiring there less capital for machinery, looms, &c. Besides, that the
spindles thexe are choaper, and less capital is needed for wor kinen, when the
number of spindles 1s the same, to tend power loonss, color and stamp dies, &e.
in proportion, than In the United States. Because there, in 1833. only alittle
over one-half of the cotton spun was made into cloth in the factories, or only
764 millions of pounds out of 145 millions of pounds. The rest was sold or
exported as yarn and taread. See Benes, 607. And in anether estimate,
over one-half the exports are in yarn. e table iM, note [1 .|. Baines, 409.
While in 1830, in the United States, ae computation of yarn sold, com-
pared with cloth made, was not one-tenth of the weight. In ASLO it
exceeded one-half. Gallatin. Another cause of the difference is, perhaps,

[Docs No. “146-"] 49
that much of the fine weaving of ginghaims, muslins and mixed cloths there
is done in hand looms not belonging to the factories. See Baines, 418.
In the computation belore stated, of the capital pér spindle for 1830, in the

2 . Ua ig . . . . + . "f .
United States, it may be useful to exhibit it in another form. According to
Pitk. page 482.

Ay

The capital in mills and fixtures was - - - $40.8, millions.
“Da: in other machinery about a : a Aa ‘
Capital in mills and machinery — - - : - 45 millions.

Which at 11 millions of spindlcs is about S35 to each. :
Capital floating or circulating, m paying wages, was near i2 millions.

Capital circulating, in buying stock, &c. | - - - Aa Cs
14

About $11 more per spindle, or $46 for every spindle.

_'The valuation placed on machinery should now be less, though most
‘of that in use cost high. Seespindles. The English proportion now is about
$12 capital per spindle invested in mills, machinery, and all fixtures con-
nected, or not much over one-third the propsruon here. But it is about $8
to each spindle ia the floating capital, for wages, stock, &c. or over two-

thirds the proportion here. More of their fine spinning is also done on the
mule spindle, which costs but little over half what the throstle spindle does,
and which last has been equally as much used here as the other, and of
late years, it is believed, far more than the other. In 1831, in England,
in Lancashire, the number of mule spindles was more than 12 times that of
the throstle. Baines, 209—note. Her capital in mills and machinery alone
is said not to exceed $4,16 to each spindle. See Baines, 414 and 368.
But that must exclude water privileges and steam engines, probably, and
all looms, out-houses, shops, &c. and refer chiefly to the mule spindle,

In 1824 it was considered in England that we employed too many per-
sons and too much capital per spindle. Sup. to Cyelop. Brit. art. “ Cotton.”

[9] The advantages of different countries for the cotton manufacture,
depend, inva great measure, on their natural condiion—long habits and
laws. England is superior to most in the abundance ‘and cheapness of
iron for machinery; in coal for warming buildings and moving steam
power ; ‘n suitable climate ; ingenuity, experience, and skill of mechanics
from great division of labor, &c. ; in greater commerce to find best markets ;
capital at low interest, and wages not high; and property secure. But
taxes there and raw material are high, and living is more expensive than
in some other places. Edinb. Rev. (1835) page 466. McCulloch, 446.) A
great increase is supposed to have taken place the past year i erecting
cotton factories in England. |

The United States, by numerous and cheap water falls, have a good
substitute for steam, and will soon have coal as low for warming ; have
equal ingenuity, and probably now superior merit in machinery ; but iron
and coal are dearer, and raw material and living both lower, and property as
secure; wages and capital higher; much less taxation; and a protective |
tariff. It is said in Amer. Cyclop..art. “Cotton,” that the introduction of

the power loom in 1818 has given great permanency and prosperity to our,

>

50 [ Doe. No. 146. ]

cotton establishments. See table L, notes to spindles, and notes above in
this table for something more on England and United States.
~ As to France, Switzerland, India, &c. it is not necessary nor convenient
here to enter into details beyond what is stated in other parts of these notes.
But it may deserve notice, that the increase in the use of raw cotton has been
-at a much more rapid rate in England than in France. Edin. Rev. (1832)
page 433. See Eames, 525 and ’6, and 515, on these points. See table [—
note. See below, note [11.]

The value of cotton manufactures in England is, comparatively, equal

to two-thirds of all her public revenue, and to nearly all her exports of
other articles. Table M, note 3. In 1797, the cotton manufacture, it 1s
said in Seybert, page 92, took the lead of any other in England. But in
1816 she consumed no more raw cotton than the United States do now.

[10] The capital of France invested in cotton manufactures,is given for
only one year, and computed at a medium between $20 per spindle, as in
England,.and $46 per spindle in the United States. As I have no French
estimates on this subject beyond the data given in Baines and other authors,
‘as to the number of spindles merely, and their cost at different periods, the
computation has not been extended to other years. Baines, 517 and 518,
gives estimates showing that France requires 28 per cent. more capital than
England to preduce the same manufactures, according to some persons,
and according to others 75 per cent. But Doct. Bowring estimates the
difference at about 30 to 40 percent. Baines, 520.

[11] The subject of wages in the different kinds of manufacture, and in
different countries, has not been discussed in detail. But see on it Wade’s
Hist. ot Mid’g Classes, 570 to 576. It may be interesting to many to know
that the average wages in 1832, in the United States, of all employed in a
cotton factory, were about 14s. 11d. sterling per week; in England, about
10s., sometimes 12s.; in France, only 5s. 6d.; in Switzerland, 4s. 5d.; in
Austria, 3s. 9d.; in Saxony, 3s. 6d.; and in India from Is. to 2s. per week.
Ditto, page 576, and Westminster Review for April, 1833.° In Niles’ Re-
gister, November, 1817, page 156, it is said to be only two cents per day in
India; but that is probably too low.

[ Doc. No. 146. ] 51
L.—COTTON, MANUF ACTORIES OF,

Persons employed, connected with factories | Spindles employed in taérpnits, number ef,
chiefly, number of, :

—

Years. {In England.| U. States. | France. In England! U. States. | France. |Switzerla’d.

1750 | 20,000
1760 | 16,0002
1770 | 30,000
1784 | 80,000
mani} 162,000 to
1787) | 960° 000
1789

1790 a s bs 70
1791 .

1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805 _- - _ = 4,500
1806 es ay 120,000 ie sh
1807 | 2 = rs =i 0 8,000
1808
1809 |_800,000 ? 2 2 = ar

qe. 4 js = 7

iad ; Millions, ;
1811 ee nis =z 5 80, 000 ?

1812 n = 2 44? st
1813

1814 = ~
1815 ie 100,000
1816 = -
1817 = ~

1818 a x < 2 2 lia
vepeere

i
yo
+e)
ca
is)
Lo)

81,006

Millions.

i+ sx ip 192.646
o 130, 000

fea Fe)

1390 fs . i 220,000
1821 it GA & S 230,000
1822. | 427,000 ;
1823

2 ~_
ae i es as query. 800,000
1826 gtr | -
1827} ph eae

1

'
for)
~~

{ OOO Whi
1,000,090 Millions.

1828 | : : - I} to 1

ME RS 89 179,000 i
siakicaanesidke te Hs 64 > os
PESBA LY ire s 200,000 | 200,000 | 73 to BE
1832 1,200,090 a ie he My
1833 '1,500,000
1634, -sfupane | u 600 ,000 94

rs 6|
a | @ gel.

3

yas

a 7 (8)

i ee

52 [ Doc. No. 146. ]

[1] The early computations of the Eber of persons employed are
very loose and contradictory. That for 1750, is from Smithers’s History of
Liverpool, page 154 ; that for 1760 and 1770, by Edinburgh Review (1827);
for 1784, by Smuth. and Baines, 218. The more recent estimates for 1509,
are 100 hich, and are by Seyb. page 92, and for 1827 in 2d line, are from
Edin. Rev. page 13, (1827, ) and page 427, (1835) and McCulloch, 443, and
Baines 431. The last make the actual laborers only G00,000. As the cloth
made 1s finer, more persons are required to a given number of spindles. So
if it is stamped or printed (see below). It is computed, that in 10 years aftet’
machinery was introduced into the manufacture of cotton, the nuniber of per-
sons employed in it, was still augmented tenfold; some have said forty times,
which is too high. But ifno machinery had been used in 1826, beye snd what
was used in 1760, it would have required from 42 to 53 millions of persons
to perform what was then done in the cotton manufacture. (Quar. Review,
1826 and Brownring’s Great Britain, pages 232.) They say one man
now equals by mac hinery, 120 in A. D. 1780, or 200 according to Kennedy
cited in Edinburgh Review, page 18, (1827, ) Smithers 1 127 ; orin 1815, one
equals from 40 to 60. Edinburgh Eneye! lop. “cotton.” In 1833, Pebrer, page
314, estimates, that 80 ) millions of persons would be needed in the cotton
manufactories without machinery. See on some of above, London Ency-
clopedia, article, “cotton, ’ printed 1829,-and in Edinburgh Cyclopedia,
article coiton, (1815) where the number of persons employe ed is estimated
at one million ; but too high. See below, note [11.]

[2] In Spain, nn 1808, it was computed, that 6,792 persons were employed
in the manufacture of cotton goods. 1 Dictionary of Spanish Com. 65; and
in Switzerland, in 1831, about-28,000 persons. West. Rev. for April, 1833.

[3] The number in France for 1834, is from Baines, page 521. Many
there engage in agriculture a part of the year as In India. The number
for 1806, is from data in I, ondon Cyclopedia, article “cotton,” and sup-
plement to Ency. Brit: “ cotton” where in 22 departments the number of
persons. engaged in spinning is said to be 28,460, and in weaving 31,107
persons, and the spindles $00,724. ‘These must include most in France, ‘and
the other persons incidentally engaged must be almost double to constitute -
the recent number of 6 or 7 persons toa spindle in making fine and colored
cloths. ‘The number for 1831, is from the West. Rev. April, 1833, page 597.

{4] In the United States, the estimate for 1815, was made by a commit- ’
tee of the House of Representatives, February 15, 1816. "The number
includes all engaged in the manufacture, or in making the mills, machinery,
é&c. and not those alone inside of the mills: These last in 1832, were com-
puted by Reuss, on Am. 'Trade, page 274. at only 28,683, but by McCulloch’s
Dictionary, page 448, at 57, 466. In 1830, by New York Convention, at
57,520, and dependants at 117, 626 persons, or 175,146 in aH, as in 2d line
of the table.

{5] Sprnptes: ‘The spindle is the most convenient article in the cot-
ton manufacture, by which to calculate the extent of it. ‘The power of any
one establishment, its cost, the number of persons employed, the quantity
of raw cotton consumed, the yarn or cloth made, and most other impor-

-

[ Doc. No. 146: J. 53.

tant resuits can, by the help ofa few general data. be very nearly deduced

from the number of spindles. '

Oa the great gain in substituting for the distaff and the spindle used by,
hand, the present machinery for spinning and other processes’ to complete
the manufacture of cotton, whether moved by horse power, water or steam,
some illustrations have already been given in the first note to this table,
and in table KX. |

With a view to furnish a few more details, which may possess some useful-
ness and interest, it may be remarked on the power of the spindle, that by
improvements in machinery it is said that one now sometimes revolves 8,000
times in a minute, instead of only 50 times as formerly, and ‘that one will
now spin on an average from one-sixth to one third more than it did 20 years
ago, (beiow, note 12). Indeed, in 1834, it is said that one person can spin
more than double the weight of yarn in a givenitime than he could in 1829.
Sentor’s Outline of Political Econ. page 198. "The quantity of raw cotton

. spun by one spindle, depends of course, on the fineness of the thread and

quality of the machinery. In England, where a considerable portion of the
the yarn is finer the average is about 83 ounces weekly, or from 27 to 28lbs.
yearly: (McCulloch, 441 note,) while the average in the United States is
about 50 pounds yearly, of yarn number 20 and 25 in fineness and about
26 pounds, of number'35 and 40. In-1808 thé average was computed at
45 pounds per spindle, of cotton yielding 38 pounds of yarn. (Report to
Congress, i810.) The difference in weight between the cotton and the
yam by loss from dirt and waste is usually estimated from one twelfth to
one-eighth... (Baines, 376) At Lowell 100 pounds of cotton yields 89
pounds of cloth, (Lowell Statistics, 1836,) though the average here used
to be, estimated at only 85 pounds, (Niles Register, (1827) page 211,) when
cotton was not so well cleaned and: machinery less perfect. ' One spindle
at Lowell produces through looms &e. on an average 1;', yards of cloth,
daily ; but this result must differ greatly with the fineness of the thread,
excéllence of the looms, width of the cloth, &e.

In 1839, it was computed, that 37 spindles were necessary to supply one
loom: though‘in 1827, at’ Lowell, the actual proportion was only 26, at
Exeter in 1821, it was 29, and now at Lowell it is 31. The number of
looms, in England in 1832 was only 1 to about 40 spindies, so much more
yarn is made atid not woven there, (McCulloch 441) and those were mostly
hand jooms. But in 1834, the number of them was about 100,000 power
looms and 250,000 hand looms or in all, about 1 to 30... (Baines, page 237.)
One loom formerly wove daily, about 20 yards of cloth of the ordinary seven-
eighths’ width, more of the 26 inches in width used for calicoes, and less of
the 5quarters wide. Whe average now is from 30 to 40 yards of No. 20. At
Lowell in 1835. it was 38 to 49 yards of No. 14, and 25 to 30 yards of No.
30. It tequires from 4 to 5 yards of cloth of Nos. 20 to 25 yarn, to weigh
one pound, and 5 to 6 yards of Nos. 35 and 40. :

The power of the spindle, as connected with the number of persons
actually employed in factories, is, that, in making plain cloth of ordinary
width and fineness, one person is needed to conduct all the business from. .
the raw cotton to the finishing of the cloth for every 20 spindles. EU the -
cloth be colored, and printed or stamped, one person will be wanted for
every 7 spindles. This would be aboyt 250 persons for all purposes in a
factory of 5,000-spindlés, making plain brown cloth. One ‘person. cai
manage trom 2 to 3 power looms.

54 [ Doc. No. 146. ]

The proportion of spindles to a factory was formerly very small, both
in England and this country. Before 1806, it was only one or two
hundred sometimes, and seldom exceeded 1 000. Soon after that some .
mills were built, containing 4,000 spindles, The average in new mills is
now from five to 6,000. In Low ell bed in 27 mills they have 129,828
spindles, or a little under § 060 to eac 1, though they print, &c. in some.

A factory with 5,000 spindl eS, mast be about 155 feet long and 45
wide, 4 stories in height, and contain about 140 looms, with other suitable

machinery for picking, warping, sizing, dc. Such an one with a few shops
and cut-houses appurtenant and land | and water privilege, would cost from

$140,600 to $220,000, according to ‘the materials for building, whether
wood, brick or stone, and the distance from navigable waters, so as to affect
cost of privilege, fre ight, éc. with other circumstances too numerous for
recital. If bleaching or printing cloths be added, more expense will be ne-
cessary, and more persons than 250, the average for este an establishment
meluding machinists.

This would be a perman 1ent Investment of capital in buildings, water
power, machinery and all“appurtenances equal to $28 or $44 per spindle,
independent of the temporary investment ot “capital to buy raw cotton, pay
wages, &c. ‘It would acne reach, and even exceed the latter sum ‘than
only the former. (See table K, on capital.) In 1810 it was computed,
that the capital actually invested in machinery and real estate, averaged
$60 per spindle. (Report of 1810.) It is not peiposed| here to go into any
comparisons of this expense now with former periods, or with other coun-
tries; except m regard to to the spindle alone, and the machinery asa
whole. For the rest see table K. ;

In 1806, when machinery could not by law be exported from England,
and the machinists here were unskilful and few, the spindle and its ‘appur-
tenances from the picker to the loom ielusive, it is computed, cost $30
each ; or 3 to 400 per cent higher than it cost at that time in England, and
over double its present cost in tae United States.

The great fall in its cost and value’since, with various improvements in
machinery, has been the cause of much loss to many capitalists em-
ployed in the manufacture. By A. D. 1820, the machinery cost only about
double its then value in England, in 1826, the machinery was made here
on an average, for about $14 per s spindle, and though now lower it still
costs from 40 to 60: per cent more than in England. The whole machi-
nery there and the mill cost only $4,16 per spindle. (Baines 368, 414,)
But that includes probably no looms, é&¢, and mere ty the building without
the-water on steam power, and the mule. spindle, moved by hand, and costing
less than haif what the throstle spindle costs, and which is chiefly in use
here. ; In. France, m 1832, the spindle alone, which 1s about half the ex-
pense of all the machinery, cost $3. It eed to cost there $10. (See
Hocklin’s Eid.) Now the spindie alone costs here about $4% if of the
throstle kind, aud $25 if of the mule kind. . in some places in the United
States 5 per cent higher. “I pes! former alone cost here, late as 1826, it
is said, $8 each. ‘The Spindle Me in the filling frame, puile extensively
at this time, costsabout $6.

These may constitute useful-and sufficient ds vta for further computations.
Asa matter of some curious interest it may be added that one pound of cotton .
usually makes 8 yds. of coarse muslin, and is then increased in value from
the raw cotton eight-fold. But if spun into the finest yarn, it is worth 5

[ Doc. No. 146. ] me

guineas, and in 1780, if woven into muslin and tamboured was worth
£15. (5 Anderson’s ‘History of Com. 878.) It may now be converted
“into a piece of lace worth 100 guineas. Senior's Outline of Polit. Bcon.
162,178. fn India, in 1786, they could spin cotton threads over 115 miles to
the pound; in Eneland they have since been spun 167 miles long froma
single pound, Baines, page 59. Niles’ Reg. page 181, March 24, 1821. One
pound of cotton spun into No, 100 yarn, extends about 84,000 yds. i in length.
Smithers’s His. of Liv. page 127. ‘The yarn spun yearly in Bngland would
reach round the globe 203,775 times or over 600 times each day. Baines,
page 451. ?

They use flour for sizing, &c. in cotton manufactures, 423 pout ids to each
spindle per annum, or four pounds weekly to each loom. In this counts ry but
one pound weekly to each loom. McCulloch, 448, as’ to report of 1832.
But at Lowell, 3,800 barrels to 4,197 looms ye: uly, or hear four pounds
each per week in Hngland three times as inat ly Spi? soe and factories
are moved by steam as By water. din. Rev. page 472 (1835). Im the
United States not one in a hundred factories is movec “by steam. ‘The
power .to move allthe cotton mills in Bngland, eqi uals that of aa OO horses,
of which only 11,000 is by the water wheel. Bain res, 395: 1824, the
whole power was estimated at only 10,572 horses Sup. to Ene eyelop. ‘rit.
*‘Cotton.” Hach factory, of common size sas employment, requires from
60 to 80 horse power here, or about 113 horse j ae io i, G00 spindles.

[6] For the number of spindles in England, in 1789, see Smithers’s
History of Liverpool, page 124. . For 1812, Edinburgh Eneyclop. arti-
cle “Cotton ;” for 1817, Edinburgh mae (1820); f or the rest, in 1811
and in 1824, Sup. to Cyelop. Brit. “Cotton ;” and the others, Bames’s Hist.
368, and } McCulloch, 441, &e. &e, The above numbers include Scotland.

The first cotton mill built in Trelanc 1, was in 1730.’ London C syclop. article

“Cotton,” and Sup. to Eucyclop. Brittan. “ Cotton? — fu 1824, treland had
145,000 spindles. Sup. to Eneyclop. Brittan. “ Cotion.”

[7], For 1812, in France, see Quart. Rev. pige: 397,, (1824 ’5,) and
French Industry, by Chaptal, page 15, who says, they then spun. only
about 30 millions of pounds; this was a ‘large nw ne forthe cotton spun,
as the spindles were poor and imperfect. for is 83%, see Nicio. Koechlin’s
evidence before the Chamber of Peers; tha ut ym one-half to one million
too high, as grounded. one an. English estimate, which was too ) ARLES: too
many for the ‘quantity: of cotton spun; for 1818, from 2 Chapta 1, page 145,
who makes 220 factories. Aa as Sp ining by machinery, in Hrance,
till after 1785. Quarterly Review, 394, (182475). First in 1787, (Sup. to
Cyclop. Brit. “Cotton,”) though cotton had been s| Spun on wheels since 1767.
See 2 Chaptal’s Jadustry of France, page A, And the cotton cloths were .
chiefly made from thread or. yarn imported ip ‘om Sie Switzerland,
and the Levant. ‘There were large numbers of cotton pocket handker-
chiefs made at Rouen, Montpelier, &c. early as 1789. 2 Chaptal’s Indus-
try of France, page 4. ; ‘hi

France had, in 1818, 70,000 looms for clota, and 10,500 jor spming
hosiery. 2 Ch: aptalion French Indastry, page 159, But his estimates on
all these subjects are considered higa. In 1805, her looms’ for cloth in

twenty-two departments are stated at only 28,634. -London Cyclop. art.

A.

“Cotton,” In 1806, the estimate, a3 to the nuntber of spindies, is from the

SG [ Doe. No. 146. ]

London Cyclop. art. “Cotton;” it is increased a hitle, for the rest of France:
not included in the above article, and is about one spindle to 25 pounds of
raw cotton spun that year, which is a fair proportion, when the goods made
are fine, and the machinery is not of.the best quality. See note above,
and supplement to Eneyclop.. Brit. art. “Cotton.” Power looms are not

-nuch used yet in France, West Rev. Ap. ’33)

[8] Some spindles and looms moved by machinery have been introduced
into India; but most of the cotton manufactured there is by women and
in households : the men, who aid in weaving, are also often laborers on the
land. Report of the committe on the affairs of the Fast India Com. ‘App.
310, 1832. Wade'on Midd. Classes. page 5/6. Yarn is often imported »
from England, it is there spun, so much cheaper by machinery. Smithers, —
127. So in Saxony, Russia, &c. Supplement to Cycloped. Brit. “ Cot-'
ton,” In China, it is said, cotton mills with spindles,@&c. have been
forbidden. In Egypt they have been introduced, but do not succeed
well from the dryness of the air, its Impurities by fine sand, and want
of skill; (Hodgden,) but they are still used by the Government. In

pain, in 1802, were 3,705° work shops for cotton or small manufac-
tories, and 1,494 looms... 1 Dict. of Com. 65. 3. do, 198, larger. “In
Switzerland, the first mill with machinery, was built in 1798: London
Cyclop. art. “ Cotten,” where is some notice of a few spindles in other parts
of Europe, viz: Saxony, Russia, Prussia, &c. So in Sup. to Kneyclop.
Brit. “Cotton.” And in West. Rev. for App. 1833. The number in the
table is from Sup. to Encyclop. Brit. “ Cotton.”

[9] The humber of spindles in.the United States.can be computed from
the data before given. For those before 1835, see Pitk. Stat. 526, and
McCulloch, page 448, and Reuss: Am. Tr. 270. ‘Those for 1809 and 1810,
the last too high in his table—sée Gallatin’s Report for the number in 1807
and 1811. Those at some other dates are from manuscript. “Gales and
Seaton’s. Documents, 2 Finance, page 432. 'Those for 1814, are from
Cox’s tables. Ditto, page 694, and Seybert Statistics, page 7, and were rez
turned between 1810 and 1814. For 1820 and 1822, Niles’ Register, page
35, March, 1823. Those for 1835, are estimated by me on former data.
In 1810, Cox in his tables returns 269 mills, but too many, if ever one-
eighth of them were for cotton Very few spindles were in each. of those
built before 1807 and ’8: :The spindles in 1830, are from the manufac-
turers’ convention, and only 12 Sthtes, but included most of the manufac-
tories. 'Those had 33,506 looms, to about 1} million of spindies, or near
1 to 40. At Lowell, 129,828 spindles exist to 4,197 looms, or 1 to 32.
This is near one-thirteenth of all the spindles in the United States. Lowell
Statistics, 1836. The first mill-built there was in 1822, and in 1826, only
2,500 spindles. See Boot’s letter to Carey. About 78,000 spindles a year
should be added here to make cotton cloth sufficient to meet the demand
of the present annual addition to our population. The spindles have in-
creased somewhat faster than that ratio the last five years, and have increased
beyond the exports of cotton goods. Of the number of spindles here at dif.
ferent periods in factories, those in 1790 or 1791, were in one mill at’ Provi-
dence, erected by Slater and Brown ; those in 1805 were mostly, if notall,in ©

Rhode Island, and two in Massachusetts, and only 8 or 16 mills. One was

begun at New Ipswich, in New Hampshire, as early as 1803, it is believed

,

f Dee: Not t4e. 7) ; ie 57

‘

and one or two in Massachusetts, and one in Connecticut before. 1808,
one-near Philadelphia before 1798, making in all, at thet ae 15 mills.
Of the spindles in 1815, about 18 OGO were in the same State. Galla-
tin’s Rep: 1810; New Hampshire Gazetteer, article “ New Teieb? The
Waltham factory in M«ssachusetts was not erected till 1810 or 1814,

“and has since devoted much capital to making machinery. ‘There was
a great increase in 1806 and ’7; again during the war of 1812; again
from 1820 to 1825; and in 1831 and ’2.— If prices continue high as
the past year, and the raw material falls, or-is stationary, the new markets
in Asia, and increased demands in Europe and America, by increased use
of cotton, and increased population, will enlarge the number of factories
here; but it is ery, easy. with our extensive water power, and cotton lands, .
to overstock the market.

It seems that’ two machines for spinning and carding were, with much
difficulty, obtained in this country, at nome ee ony as 1788. ‘One

_earded 40 pounds of cotton a day, aud the other had 50 spindles, and the
growth of cotton was urged on the southern States es, and the use of these
machines in farnilie s recommended. In 3 Carey’s Museum see the descrip-
tion more large.; Ih 5 Carey’s Museuny, (A. D. 1790,) it is said, a,model
of a'cottod mill and machit very, dec. as used in England, had been obtained
at Philadelp yhi ia, by the society for promoting manufactures and useful arts.
It would seem that 'F. Cox, Esq. took an active part in urging the cultiva-
tion and manufacture of cotton on the country early as. 1787. Rees’s Cy-
clop. art. “ United States,” and Gales and Seaton’s Doo. page 676, vol. 2, of
Finance. ‘The English prohibited the export of the cotton machinery, as
well as the emigration. of their mechanics, under such penalties as delayed
the. mtroduction of it here, and caused the price of machinery for many
years to be so high here as to retard, and almost defeat successful competi-
tion. _ See before.

¥

[10] For a detailed account of the different kinds of machinery used
in the cotton manufactories, the inventors of them, improvements in them,
&c.«. See London Cyclop. art.“ Cotton,” and same article inthe New
Edinb. Encyclop. and supplement to causa Brit. “Cotton.”

[11] The change of late years in some places in England, from the hand
to the power loom, has caused some distress, and the employmen t ofa
larger po: He of females and children ; now about one-fifth there are men,
ene-third’ women, and the rest children. Wades? Hist. of the ee
Classes, pages 570 and'’l. The number of hand looms in England, 1
1820 and 183 0, was about the same, viz: 240,000, but that of power ines
had increased from 14,000 to. 55,0 00. Each of the latter performs as much
as three of the former. Wade, 261.) Parliamentary papers, in 1830. In

1834 the power looms had become 100,000. Baines, 237.

[12] The American ‘throstle spindle revolved 7,500 times before 1833,
though it hed to rum in England only 4/500, and afterwards on ily 5, 400.
West. Rev. for April, 1833, page 403. Machinery and skill, and the raw
material have so,improved, that ‘where some years ago the threads broke at
the rate of 13 -per ‘cent. , they break now only 3 per cent. Do. Many
modern improvements in “machinery 1 in Epgland are from America. West.
Rev. Ap. 1833. ai \

‘

Co

38

~[ Doc. No. 146. ]

\ -
M.
COTTON, MANUFACTURES OF.
_ Values of exports of their own, from—
England. | France. |Germany.!Spain; Turkey and} India. | U. States.| China.
Africa.
5 ®
¥ NRA aa hae 3
é Dollars; Dollars. Dollars. | Dolls.|. Dollars. | Dollars.| Dollars. | Dollars.
Millions. Millions. | Millions. [Milns:| Millions. |Millions.| Millions. |Millions.
Offi. Value.
1789 |' 6 | '
1790 8 |
1791 9 |
1792.| 93 aa
1793 1 |
1794 | 114 |
1795" |) 113 | ;
A796 | 15k |
W797 | 17 |
1798 | 17 | |
L799 28 | i
1800 | 263 i |
801 | 33
1802 | 3 haat ML s e 20 |
18038 34 | é ike 5 2}
1804] 41
1805 45 \
1806 | (50 f * i % aif < | 4
1807 | 48
1808 | 61
1809 | 99 |
1810 | 90
1811 68
1812 78 : : |
1813 vs n hs a he 18 ‘ables
; Real | i
or dec | |
value }
1814 | 84 95 ;
1815 | 106. 98 |
TRIG RG oa
1817| 101» 76 | |
1818 |. 98° 894 |
1819 | 88: 70
1820 |. 1072 79. | 2 Z a w ! BA 3
1821 | 113 77 '
1822 | 128 82 |
1823 .|'137 °° 82k, 4h |
1824 | 143, 86 | 6 |
1825 | 135' 86 |
BIG EID TAR LS - ki f s Lent) 1
1827 | 157 835 | Db Ba ad a rae I |
ISB ROE WSL “| i a i M 1
1829 | 197 . $33 4} il fe si Pius
1830 |\188 81 10 i ui 5B I?
1831 | 208-83 | 103 a Tey | B ef Line
1832 | 209, . 833 10! p é roe BOM)
1833|.222 . 883 11 te it Ds a ony
1834 98} 10, iy oe Ne at ea | 27,
(83) 1 alte
1885 | Ras, | {BL
Ort 2) B) [4] (i i [5] [10] [6] [7] pout

[ Doc. No. 146. ] 89

{1] The exports of English manufactures in 1833 and 4, were about

one-third in value in yarn. See Edinburgh Review, 472, (1835) ) Baines’s

and Official Reports. See table K, note on capital. Some years yarn con-
stitutes one-half in weight.

From 1814 to 1823 inclusive, the value of yarn exported compared with
the value of other cotton coods increased slowly, from being about one-
seventh and one-sixth, to be about one-fifth. London Cyclopedia, article
“ Catton?”\;'The proportiona! increase of yarn bas been even ¢ereater since.
See Parker’s speech in Parliament, February, 1836. The yarn exported
is understood to be generally course - between No. 18 and 40. From
half to three-quarters of the Jace made is exported chiefly to the continent.
It is mostly made of sea-island cotton, and equals near 9 millions of dollars
in value yearly, McCulloch, page 744.

[2] The difference between the official value on exportation, and the
declared value is given above. But the declared, or what is sometimes called
the real value, in the 2d coluinn is still usually, from 2} to 5 per cent. under
the actual market value. (Baines, page 403.) ‘The of ficial value is founded
on the quantity, computing the price as it was about the close of the 17th
century, or A. PD. 1689. The market value has changed more from the
official in some arii cles than in others, e. &

In 1829, Go a plain per yard - - : . 3d. Official.
norris 6 Ce) ee = - 0 6 real.

is aie printed per yard — - - - | aaa 8 official
66 6é 6c 4 66 p ie bs 0 8: 3 real.

“ eotton yarn aid twist percwt -' £10 0 0. official
‘c 6 66 43 i eens () real.

(Baines, page 351.) See more on prices of manufactures, table K; note 1.

The sum entered for 1835, is only for the year ending 5th Jan: 1835,
and not any subsequent; and the second sum for 1834, te for the year 1834
only to 5th Jan. while the first sum for 1834, is probably for the whole
fiscal year. Some discrepancies occasionally arise by the statements being
made with different terminations for the year, as some end in April, and
some in January, &c. See returns.

[3] The exports of cotton manufactures from England are now, and for
some years have been, nearly equal to one half of her exports of every
kind. The above sums for England are from Baines, page 350. The re-
cords for 1813 and before that, for the declared value were burned. "Those
sums do not include tre sland, amounting from one-tenth to three-tenths of
a.million yearly. Aikin says 63 per cent. of ~vhat is made in England is
exported, and Edinburgh Review, page 472, says, in aes that the exports
from England were about 184 million pounds sterling, and consum ption
about twelve and one-tenth million sterling. See for 1831,-2.and’ 3,
McCulloch, 675. :

[4] The exports from ‘Mrance in 1823 and 4, are from 2-Dictionary of
Spanish Commerce, page 148. %n-1829, from Edinburg Review, ] page 62,
(1829.) In 1833, from Baines 525, note, and in 1831 and 2, from the
French tables of commerce, with a slight addition or variation, it 1s be-
lieved, in some cases in the value of the franc. In 1830 from Westmin-
ster Revi iew, April, 1833, and Wade on Working Classes, 575, and that 7
millions were printed goods.

'

60. [ Doc. No. 146. ]

[5] Those from Spain in 1803, were chiefly from her possessions in
India and America, Dictionary of Spanish Commerce. Spain of late
imports largely of cotton manufactures. See table O, note 1, and table N.
‘he Moors introduced this manufacture into Spain, early as the 9th or 10th
centuries. Baines, page 38.

[6] Those from India are estimates, and might be extended, from the fol-
lowing data. Her islands and she have long had.a domestic trade in cotton
goods. 3 Crawford’s Hist. of Ind. Archip. 350. It then spread to other
parts of Asia, to the eastern coast of Africa, and next to Europe.

India in 1813, exported to Hngland alone 10 millions of dollars worth
of her cotton goods, and now umports as much from England. Montgo-
mery’s Anglo. Hast, Emp. But she still exports certain kinds to England
valued in 1831, at about 2 millions of dollars ; in 1832, at 13 millions; and
in 1833, at 1 million. Some of these are re-exported,. McCulloch, page 672
and 676 ; Evid.on East Ind. Comp page 310, App. In 1802, 3, and 4, the
United States imported cotton goods of India origin, worth nearly 3 million
dollars per year. Seyb. page 218. Hence the exports of cotton manu-
facttures from India formerly were large. But they have fallen off greatly,
and especially since 1816, to the United States. Pitk. Stat. 188 and 2): She
often exports raw cotton of late years, instead of cotton manufactures.
Supplement to Encyclop. Britt. “Cotton.” See Seyb. Stat. page 289, on our
whole imports thence in 1814, and chiefly cottons. See above:

4
[7] ‘Those exports from the United States are from official tables. “They,
doubtless would have increased much more rapidly, had the demand for
them at home not been so great, by means of their good quality, cheapness
and our increasing population.

‘
Pa /

[3] The whole exports of cotton goods from China to England and her
dependencies in 1832, were valued at about + Million of dollars... MeCul-
loch, 237, article “ Cotton,” and page 240, where is given the pieces of nan-
keens so exported from 1793 to 1831, which alone at 50 cents each, would
range from 12th to d,million of dollars yearly. . In page 813, he thinks
the exports of nankeens have been on the inerease to different quarters.

From China the exports of cotton goods consist chiefly of chintzes and
nankeen, and the amounts in the table are estimates. ' The former have
greatly diminished of late years. Supplement to Encyclop. Britt. « Cotton.”
She imports now both English and American cotton goods. (See exports
of them, ‘Tables N, and O.

In 1802, 3, and 4, the United States alone, it is estimated, imported
Chinese cotton goods valued from 1 million of. dollars to 13 million
yearly. See official returns of all articles imported from China, Gales and
Seaton’s Doc, page 599 in 1 vol. on Com. and Nav. Formerly the United
States imported largely of nankeens, so as some years to export 45 mil-
lion of dollars of them as in A. D. 1792, Gales and Seaton’s Doc. page
144, vol. 1, Com. and Nav. But our official returns since as well as
before 1821, do not discriminate the cotton goods imported. From 1818 to
1827, they fell off from about 1 million to + million. Pitk. Stat. 305,
McCulloch, page 242. ny

j
‘

f Doc. ‘No..146. ] 61

[9] The exports of cotton goods from Germany are chiefly by iand and
not extensive. This trade coultl not have existed at all formerly, and the
estimates are too uncertain for much reliance.

Tn and near Vienna are established considerable cotton manufactures by
machinery. Supplement to Ency. Britt. « Cotton.” According to McCul-
loch Dict. page 448, the cotton exports from Austria are chiefly in yarn.
They are on the increase. See Wade on Working Classes, page 576.

[10] From Turkey, including the products of Smyrna and the neigh-
borhood as well as Barbary and Morocco, there have been frequently ex-
ported in former years, various articles of cotton manufacture ; but not of
great value as a whole. This manufacture was introduced into "Turkey
in Europe in the 14th century by the Turks. ‘Some cotton cloth was im-
ported from the coast of Africa to England about the close of the 16th
century. The growth and manufacture of cotton were ee much by
the Mahometan « conquests. 2 McPherson’s Com. 195; Baines 32

[11] The barrenness of this table is another illustration of the small
extent in the foreign trade of cotton goods except by England, France and
the United States, It presents also a singular illustration of the recent
date of their progress in it, and of the difficulty in knowing much of the
ancient or older business of India and. China in this branch of their trade,
with such accuracy as to deserve reliance; though more leisure might
probably have enabled me to present some more statistical facts on that
subject, than I have yet met with. See the diffusion of this manuiacture
by the Mahometans from Arabia &c. note (10) in this table, and (5).

In 1825, the Dutch exports and fla at Japan, are given (MeCul-
loch, page S12, ,) and the former as’ well as the latter contained a few cotton
goods, from 5 to $8,000 in value.

62 [ Doc. No. 146. ]
| N.
COTTON—MANUFACTURES OF.
; t
Exports of their own—to what places—values of.

~

England to Netherlands,

England to United States.
England to India & China,

England to S. Americaand

Mexico, except Brazil.

| England to'France. .
England to Germany.
Various places to Spain.
Various places to Russia.
England to Brazil.

Dellars. Dollars. | Dollars. | Dollars. | Dollars. ‘Dollars. Dol’s.| Dollars.

~)
i

Years.

|

Millions. |’ Millions. {Millions.'Millions.|Millions. Millions.|Mill’s.

1789 Millions.| Mil’s.
ma
1790
1791]
1792

1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802 |
1803
1804
1805

1806
1807
1868
1809
I8LO
181i
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819

|
Bl cs)0} ba bol

|
|
|
|
|

[ Bee. No i146, 7 63
% N._Continued.

COTTON—MANUFACTURES OF.

Exports of their ewn—to what places—values of.

veil a a RP hk) RS RA AI ES te il ee
g w ; : 3 E i SI | ee
IE Bo at 3 s 4a | 8 | 4g s
: ae Ae eean te yy Te TC eset
as = le, ep 2 < ae a 2 =
| Spa Mee a | Se 5 S a
E Dollars. Dollars. ‘| Dollars. Dollars. | Dollars. | Dollars. | Dol’s.) Dollars. | Dol’s.
Millions. ‘Millions./Mlllions. Millions. Millions./Mil’s., Millions, Mil’s.
’ ea |
Offi. or dec.) Whole sum. |
1820 i 8.700 | 20°] 5 A Bec eee alee ED
1821 68] 48500) 18 | 5 5h
1822 82} 18,000 | 19° | '5% | Bb
1823 fee, 060 S| PA 7 6
1824 76) 55,000 | 136 | 64° | 53 Lhd eee
1825 Me BR OGO by t5a | 47 Bd
1826 65 119,000 14 6 53.
1827 g |122000| 143| 6% | 9% | 5g
1828 83|110,000'} 13%) 62 | - | 5%
1829 64 | 122,000 14d 62 a (t
1830 62) 50,000 | 14 6 Lian Wess
1831 43° | 240,000 | 114 | 64 | Q2 |7E[72]] - |. - | 33
1832 S11 318,000} 15%] Sk | 82 | 64 | -]. 6 6%
1833| « 6.3|450,000| 144) 93,4 8 Gg Seer a Tae
[or 855]
1834 82-| 730,000 | 153 | 10 We hye 5| 6 7h
1835
[5]

[1] | [10] [4] [9] | 4] [6] | {7] {18
aio |

[1] ‘This table shows chiefly the exports of cotton goods from England
to different places, and from 1820 to 1833 the values are mostly taken from
official documents. Porter's tables, 161-7, page 300. The statements in
different books sometimes difler from referring to different terminations of
the year.

[2] Since 1832 Belgium has taken, in that:year and 1838, about 1} mil-
lions of the amount of what is placed to the whole Netherlands from En-
land. In 1834, it is seid by Alexander, she imported of cotton goods,
from all places, about 24 milions of dollars, and smuggled twice as much
more, that did not appear en ‘the official returns,

64 [ Doc. No. 146 ft

[3] The exact consumption of manufactured coiton goods in each coun-
try is seldom attainable. But an approximation to the quantity er value
can be easily made from the data given in the tables. ‘Thus the quantity
of cotton manuiactured in each and not exported, will, with the imports of
cotton manufactures not afterwards re-exported, constitute nearly the true
amount. ,

Another general mode of computation might be, that in such countries
as Turkey, it has been estimated that only two pounds of raw cotton per
head, made into manufactures, isconsumed. (Urquhart’s Views, page 150.)
In warmer, and still. poorer countries it wouid be less. In France, each
person. is estimated to consume $4 worth ef cotton goods per year; in
England, $5; and here probably $6.

The exports to Germany and Netherlands are from one-third to one-half
in twist and yarn, and are woven there. Porter's tables, page 300, and
Baines, 416. Soin a great proportion to Russia. Sup.to Encyclop. Brit.
“Ootton;” and some even to India. See table O. So chieily to Prussia. ,
Blackwood’s Magazine, for January, 1536.

[4] The exports to France from 1789 to 1793 are computed at 5 millions
of dollars yearly, in Quar. Review, 594-9 (1824-5). See official returns
for the table, and McCulloch, page 644. But it must include ali smuggled,
and is then not too high. It equals the whole amount of all the regular
imports of cotton goods into France at that time from all quarters. 2 Chap-
tal’s Industry of l’rance, page 9. The sums in the table for 1789, &c. are
from Bowring’s Report, page 52, who says that 10 milhons of dollars
worth of English manufactures, and chiefly cotton, are of late years smug-
oled from England to France. See also Baines, 517, note. ‘The whole
imports of such goods into France in 1823 were 9 millions of dollars; in
1824, 12 millions of dollars. In 1806, about 143 millions of dollars worth
were smuggled. Sup. to Eneyclop. Brit. “Cotton.” See 2 Dictionary of
Spanish Coimmerce, page 214. In 1812 all the legal imports of cotton
goods into rance were less than a third of a million of dollars. % Chaptal,
page 9. Of those smuggled, in late years, quite 2 millions of dollars worth
were in bobbinet laces. McCulloch, 1054.

[5] The exports to India include the islands, and for 1831 and 1832 are’
from McCulloch, page 446, and the others mostly from official tables. See
more in McCulloch, 235, as to that part by the East India Company. ‘The
trade in cotton manufactures has increased greatly since the first opening
of it in 1814. _ Do. 533-4, and 539, another table.

. These exports to Spain were chiefly from England, France and
Italy, and some from Spanish America. (Dictionary of Spanish Commerce.)
Those direct to Spain from England, in 1835 and 1834, were only about
1, million of dollars. But England exported to Gibraltar, in those years,
from 1 to 14 millions of dollars in cotton -goods, (see official tables) and
which found their way in part into Spain. McCulloch, Dic. page 600.
The sum for 1834 is a computation only on the above data, and the fact that
France exports therefrom 2 to 2 millions of dollars yearly. See table O,

note [1].

[7| The imports into Russia in 1832 were almost wholly from England.
Porter’s tables, 545; Baines, 416 In 1833, from England, 6 millions of

4

~

[ Doc. No. 146. ] 65

dollars; and in 1834 only 5} millions of dollars. Some of them go to
places in the Black Sea, &c. "McCulloch, 859. Russia excludes certain
cotton cloths,} but not yarn. Blackwood’s Magazine, for February, 1836,
page 62. On others her tariff is high. 2 Smith’s Com. Dig.

eee to Brazil, &c. See McCulloch, 446; Baines, 416; and Offi-
cial Reports for 1834 and 1835.

[9] England exports largely cotton goods also to Italy and Italian islands :
in 1833, 7 millions of dollars; and in 1834, 10 millions of dollars. See
more in McC ulloch, page 814, and page 1212, some to Venice, now ,; of a
million.

The ratio of this kind of exports from England, in 1834, was as follows:
1. Germany; 2. Italy; 3. United States; 4. India and China; 5. Holland;
6. Brazil; 7. Russia; 8. Turkey and Greece, in 1833 and 1834, over 4
millions of dollars each year; 9. Portugal and islands, in some years 3 to
A} millions of dollars; 10. British W. est Indies ditto, 3 to 33 millions of
dollars; 11. Chili alone 24 to 3 millions of dollars; '12. States of Rio de
la Plata alone 14 to 2} millions of dollars. See official returns, and Baines,
416. ‘Those for Germany go largely to Trieste. McCulloch, 1186.

The whole exports to Germany in 1833, were estimated to be so divided
that from 10 to 11 millions of dollars were in cloths and laces, and the re-
mainder in yarn, being 35 millions of pounds. Beside Trieste, part of
these exports pass through the Hanse towns, and others through Rotterdam
and Antwerp. Blackwood’s Magazine, for January, 1836.

[10] Those exports to the United States are obtained chiefly from our
own official returns of imports, though some, and especially the earliest,
are from English tables.

66

1787
1789
1790
173k
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799

1800"

1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
say
1820
18?1
1822
1823

[ Doe. No. 146. ]

O.

COTTON, MANUFACTURES OF,

Exports of their own, to what places, values of,

Z Li Sie 2 Sos 2c g Be
ae ern, 2 =o ass a. n es
oe ee os Sd Ao Sh 225 au a5
En Bs, pS ays SES Sa aa am
es ss =e) a nas wa W.E ler,
je c On av Uri} —— a ces, = oO
aD ea: sys So Shes re mcs <\t
aie She SPGON1S OF hers o's ae: i
ae hls s = = EWG Bigs ts ‘ao

=) = cot age =) Se 5 ps

Pollars. | Doilars.| Dollars. | Dollars.| Dollars.| Dollars. Dollars. Dollars.
‘\iilions.!Millions.|Millions.|Miullions.| Millions.
wall
TO
‘
:

1 1
o5 i? oa 30

1 ae <i

7 20

X » — at

5 30

[ Doc. No. 146. ] @6T

O,—Continued.

COTTON, MANUFACTURES OF,

| Exports of their own, to what places, values of,
- : o O38 Os S Own

vi

3 Dollars. | Dollars. Dollars. | Dollars. | Dollars. Dollars. Dollars. Doliars.

a |

| |
Millions. Millions. Millions. Millions.) Millions.

1Gee Vewdsid) wed $i] ereouxp a
1825 mS Vio = = +5 Whole sum stated.
1926} 4 | - ai 4 2, | 10,000 | 14,000 | 99,000
$27 l; Shes foe coven) steaks Cll head | an OOD °-9,0005) x60, DO8
faze) ke i y | 22,000 ) 14,900 | 46,000
1829 | 4 a ‘ a I=.) 37,000 | 26,000 | 49,000
1830 | 2 = — nt it 75,000 56,000 AZ ,Q00
1831 | 14 34 - ae 2, | 66,000 | 49,000 41,000
$832 Ablow ey! fos F | 2») 83,000.| 88,000 | 53,000
PSBBiloo Gan) bas pds i | 1a. | 120,000. | 215,000 86,000
1834 poid tah) oe cnfdlto Bp g,'0 pRB pHB6;000.1) 152,000 127,000
1835 | :

a mee 2 te oh

[1] Over half of the exports of France, in her cotton manufactures, are
to her own colonies, according to Baines, 525, note ; but this is too much
for 1831 and 2. France exports also, about $1,000,000 of them per year
to Holland and Belgium, one-half million to Germany, two and a half mil-
lion to Spain, and one million. to Sardinia. See ‘Tables of French Com-
merce, for 1832. In 1831, the export was short of a million to Holland
and Belgium, Sardinia and Germany each, about two ynillions to Spain,
over 1! to Mexico, and only about one million to her own colonies, with
one-fourth of a million to Hayti. Her exports to England given ir
table, are from her official tables for 1831 and ’2. Besides that +
smuggled.

[2] ‘hose exports from the United States are compil
tables, as far as they go back, discrimnating to what ¢
the United States, from France and Germany, are f
returis.

[3] Tariff or duty on cotton munufactie
manufactures to any particular country are
duty imposed on their importation, A

68 [ Doc. No. 146. ]

those countries, in respect to cotton goods, would be tedious, and might
be supposed to bear on the question of protection, &c. in the United States,
and which question, it is not proposed in these tables or notes, to agitate.

It may be added, that the average duty imposed in France, at this time,
on the imports of most cotton goods, is very high, amounting almost to a
prohibition, except for re-export. So in Russia. Blackwood’s Magazine,
for January, 1836. In England, it is considered to be about 20 per cent,
though low as 10 on some articles. Before 1826, it was much higher, 50
and 67 per cent. See 1 Com. Digest, by Smith, page 98, and Huskisson’s
speeches, in 1825, in Parliamentary Debates. McCulloch, page 1117. In
the United States, the duty in 1790, was about 7} per cent. on the value of
most cotton goods; in 1794, raised to 123 per cent.; in 1816, to 25 per cent.
and a minimum; in 1824, the same with a certain minimum valuation,
making the duty larger; in 1828, increased still more by raising the mini-
mum; in 1832, reduced again. See the different acts of Congress on the
tariff, and Pitk. Stat. page 188.

This makes the average duty in 1833, on most cotton cloths, and as com-
puted by some, about 42 per cent and thus exposes it to a biennal reduc-
tion till 1842, when, by the existing laws, it will become only 20 per cent.
Campbell on Tariff, page 120. The duty on British cotton manufactures has:
lately been increased in Java, by the Dutch, from 6 per cent to 25 per cent.
Blackwood’s Magazine, January 1836, page 51.

[4] More could be given on the exports of cotton manufactures
from a few of the above countries at other periods, but the amount
and value of them were so small as to deserve very little notice, and the
increases of late years, compared with their meagre and blank condition,
in this respect, a quarter and a third of a century ago, are striking indica-
tions of the revolution going on in Europe and the United States in the
manufacture of cotton.

ii

iho ae

(

Wr
ee .
Whack tm

ier

i ty

A at i K eS
4 viene 4

iB

;

otek’ a
Nr apr ty 1

70

Doe." Nes 146.

iE
. COTTON.

Dates of the most important changes in the cultivation, manufacture, and
trade of cotton, chiefs y within the period to which these tables generally
extend.

(1)
1730
1735

[2]
1733

[6]

Sea island cotton chiefly substituted for Bourbon cotton in England. :

First cotton yarn spun in England by machinery, by Mr. Wyat Smithers, ae
Cotton first grown in Surinam by the Dutch, or perhaps first aah thence

A patent first taken out by Lewis Paul for an improved method in carding, and the
{iy shuttle invented by John Kay. Stock cards were first used for cotton by J. Har-
grave in 1760, and cylinder cards were not invented oF pire and were first used by
Robert Peel. Carding not brought to perfection till 1775. Baines, 170.

First mill for spinning cotton built at Birmingham; Bred by niules or horses ; but
not successful. :

The fly shuttle was brought into general use in England in weaving, though some
postpone the date to 1760. Baines, 116:

Cotton velvets and quiltings first made in England.

Arkwright obtained his first patent for the spimning frame, though he made further
improvements in 1768. Became free 1784. Baines says his first patent was in 1769.
So does Wade, and that his second patent was in 1771.

Two years afier, T *homas Highs claims to have invented the spinning jenny, which J.
Hargrave cave also in 1767. Smithers and McCulloch, 436. Edinb. Encyelop.
art. “Cottcn;” or, according to Baines, in 1764.

The stocking ie applied to make lace by Hammond.
The feeder invented by Lees, and the crank and combs by Hargrave.
A bill pee to Biovent the export of machinery used in cotton factories. Smithers, 155.
And still in force, though not strictly executed. Blackwood’s Mag. for Jan. 1836.
Mule spinning invented by Hargrave, or rather ee Sa by Crompion. Baines, p. 199.
Past imports of raw cotton into England from Brazil; poorly prepared ;-and in three
to nine’ years after, first from United States of their own grow th; and from India
and Bourbon about 1785. See table F—note, and Smithers, “156

Watt took out his patent for the steam engine, though some say in 1769 the first one;
and got into general use ue move machinery in 1790. He begun his improvements in
1764, according to Wade’s History of the Middling Classes, page 82.

A bounty granted in England on the export of certain cotton goods. 4 McPhers. 42 and 56.

Power looms invented by Doct. Cartwright; though } srevious to that some similar
models had existed w hie h had not been patented or used. Baines, 228. Supplement
to Eneyclop. Brit. art. “Cotton.” Steam engines used in cotton factories. Baines, 226.
Cylinder printing inv vented by Bell. Baines, 267. Arkwright’s patent expired, and
a ee t impulse to manufactures of cotton. 4 McPherson, 79 and 81.

Bleaching first performed by oxy muriatic acid by Beriholeit. Baines, 194.

First machinery to spin cotton put in operation in France, though some cotton was used
in spinning, &c. since 1767. Encyclop. Brit. 407.

Sea island cotton first planted in the United States; and upland cotton first cultivated
for use and export about this pant or three or four years previous. Some say in

786. See tables, and Baines, 297; and others in 1790.

First cotton factory built in the ‘United States in Rhode Island. [8] Water power first

applied to the mule spinner by Kelly. Baines, 205.

M4

The coiton gin invenied by E. Whitney, in the United Sta'es. This is often staied to
be in A. D. 1795; but the patent is dated in 1794, March 14.

First mill and machinery erected in Switzerland for cotton.

Spinning by machinery introduced into Saxony. Encyclop. Brit. 411.

Power looms moved by waiter or steam succeed in Scotland. j

Dressing and warping machine for power looms invented by Radcliff and J ackson, and
contributed much to their success. Blackwood’s Mag. for Jan. 1836. An act passed in |
in England, requiring in cotton mills, as well as some others, certain clothes for ap-
»rentices—not to work them more than 12 hours each day —and certain insta
in letters to be given to them, &c. Wade’s History, page 98.

be e

| lee Node ie?

| ae
r - P—Dates of most ieporiart changes, §c. —Continued.
p ’
1803 | First cotton factory built in New Hampshire. See table L, note [9]. Power loom, as
— | now used, perfected.in England, and patented by Harrock.
1804
1805 | Power looms suce -essfully and-widely introduced into England after many failures.
1806
1807 | The revolution in Spanish America begins to furnish new markets for co:ton manufac-
tures
1808 | S: amping the cylinders for printing cloth by means of dies mtroduced at Manchester.
1809 | Lace machinery much improved by Heathcott.
1810 | Digest of cotton manufacitres in the United States by Mr. Gallatin, and another by T.
Cox, Esq. and public attention drawn to ee: Sa importance.
Wil | A patent for making bobbin Jace by machir y John Burn; though invented by Mr.
Heathcot tim 1809. McCulloch, 7143.
1812
1813 "The India tr a made more free, and more British manufactures sent there; took
efizct April 4, 18 14. MeCullocl i, page 533.
1814
1815 he power loom introduced into the United Siates first, at Waltham, in 1815, it is said,
1816 bi in Am: Encyelop. art. “Cotton.”
1817 | India cotton gaor As less imporied on account of the minimum in the tariff of 1816. Pitk.
Siat. 183. Saure year the fly frame was mtroc luced into England
1818 | Ney thod of p >reparing sewing cotton invented by Mr. Holt. Cotton averaged
anout 34 cents pet pot nds the highest of any year in the United Siatés since 1891.
1819 | New coiion lands sold very high in the United States.
1820 | Steam power first applied with stccess exiensively to lace machinery.
1821, ;
1822 eted at Lowell.
1823 x nfrom Hzgypt to England.
1824 |. Hieher fat y a ail 1 the United Sates on foreign cotton manufactures by the mini-
; man principle. . Se2 table O, note [3].
1825 | Seliactin iS mule spinner paiented in England by Roberts. Baines, 207, same wear
- the tub e frame introduced there, from America. Cotton rose to 21 ceats per pound,
d great speculations in it in the United States.
1826 xports of American cotton manufactures to any considerable value.
1827
he Highestiduty in the United Staies on foreign cotton manufaciures. , Table O, note [3].
829
1830 | About this time Mr. Dyer introduces a machine from the United States into England
to make cards ;
1831
1832 || Duty bn’cotton mant aginres inp orted into the United States reduced. Table O, note [3].
|. By-l &2 William 4, it was provided in England, that, in cotton mills, work showd
; , notbedene mnight isa y minors, and but 9 hours’ work on Saturdays. Wades ee p. 113.
1833 | Further opening of India made increases the market there for English and A American
#/ CGtlon goods.
1834 | Cotton rose to 164 cents per pomnd— higner than any other year since 1825.
1835 | ‘Extensive purchases of new cotton lands in the United Siates.

[10]

[1] In the 16th ceniury, cotton manufactures came to Europe from India,
through the trade of Venice. Smithers, 118. “He says they were intro-
duced into China fi rons India about 200 years earlier, (Smithers, page 152,)
having existed in the latter country from the first kno. wledge of it. From

Venice
1560.
when diseanreted, at the close of the 15th century.

2
gee and Smyrna, and was taken from London to Manchester to
be worked up... Smithers, 119. Edin. Rev. (1837) page 2. Though cot-
ton manufactures had been imported early as A. D. 1500; and the first act
of Parliament relating to them, nominally, passed in A. D. 1565, though

ud

he

es trade in Parva and then the manufacture, went to Flanders about
‘ney existed’ in "Arabia in the 7th centar y. Found in America

In the 17th century,.A. D. 1641, raw cotton came to' England

we rt .

72 [ Doc. No. 146. |

probably woollens were intended. Table A, note [12]. Calicoes were im-
ported before 1631. Smithers, page 152. Made in {.ondon, A. D. 1681;
and those from India prohibited, 1721. Smithers, page 153. Baines, 79.

Raw cotton, in 18th century, came chiefly from the French West Indies,
Surinam, Brazil, and isle of Bourbon, till near its close, when the imports
began from the United States, India, &c. Smithers, 123. In 1660, Kng-
land prohibited her colonies from sending it to other than British ports or
dependencies. 1 McPherson’s Com. 486.

[3] Muslins first made at Paisly, in Scotland, A. D. 1700; but they did
not succeed well, nor cambrics, till 1725, in Glasgow. ;

Tn 1759 French cambrics and lawns were prohibited by law. Smithers,
154.

[4] In 1769, Arkwright built cotton mills at Nottingham, and 1780, at
Cromford, &c. the first moved by horse, and the next by water power. He
made new improvements, and took out new patents, and, in 1789, com-
menced actions for violating his patents, in which he failed, (Smithers, 155,)
though in some former trials on his first patent he succeeded. Supplement
to Encyelop. Brit. “ Cotton.”

Populace began to destroy cotton machinery in Lancashire in 1779.

The first spinning machines had only a few spindles, say 8; but after-
wards increased to 80, (Do.) and sometimes to 120. McCulloch’s Dict.
page 438.

On machinery of other kinds, see in table, A. D. 1738.

[5] The raw cotton of India, the Surats, and Bourbons, was first imported
into England in 1783. Before, that from Cayenne, Surinam, Demarara,
St. Domingo, and Essequibo, was chiefly used. Smithers, 155.

[6] But Wyatt’s invention does not appear to have been well matured or
much brought into use, though he and Paul took out a patent in 1738.
Baines’s Hist. McCulloch’s Dict. 439—note.

[7] Itis a remarkable fact, that the cotton manufacture was so little
known and appreciated in England when Adam Smith published his
Wealth of Nations, (in A. D. 1776,) that the subject is believed not to be
alluded to by him in the slightest manner So, in 1794, it is believed Mr.
Jay was not aware that cotton was or would be exported from the United
States. Pitk. Stat. page 198. See table F, note 9, page 33. In Postleth-
waite’s Dict. “ Cotton,” 1766, he urged iis cultivation i in English plantations
suited to it, and seemed to anticipate the increasing importance of its
manufacture.

[8] Mr. Gallatin states this to be, 1791, in his report on domestic manufac-
tures, April 17,1810. See Gales and Seaton’s Doc’ s, v. 2, on Finance, p. 425.

[9] Cloths were sent abroad to be bleached till 1750, and required 8 months,
then reduced to 4 months, and, in 1784, Watt introduced the practice of
bleaching with chlorine into En gland i ina few hours. Baines’s Hist.246 and 7.

[10] Many of the above dates and facts appear in the other tables and
notes; but they are collected here in chronological order, with some other
material events, for the pyrpose of presenting, in one view or statement,
the different periods in WKich the chief progress from fifty to a hundred
years past has been made in the growth, cultivation, and trade of cotton.

[ Doc. No. 146. ] 73
Q.

Extracts as to the subject of Cotton, from the Annual Treasury Report
in December, 1835.

“1, From this it appears that our whole exports, of every kind, in the last
five years, including the estimates for 1835, have not exceeded those,
during a similar term, from 1803 to 1807, inclusive, but about forty mil-
lions, and being an excess ho larger than at most intervening periods,
while an extraordinary increase has taken place in our exports of domestic
products, exceeding, in value, those durmg that term more than one hun-
dred and fifty millions, and being quite doubled the excess at most inter-
vening periods. Indeed, +t will be seen that they have been almost a
hundred per cent. larger than they were in any similar term of years pre-
vious to 1816, and have exceeded those during such a term, only ten years
ago, by the sum of about one hundred and fifteen millions; a difference
greater than the whole amount of all our exports of domestic products
during the first five years under our present form of government. The
recent average rate of increase in these exports, however, has not been
large, independent of the article of cotton; nor is it likely to augment
during the few ensuing years. Adopting a comparison between every
term of ten years, from 1792, 93, and °94, to 1832’33 and 734, and including
all articles, it appears that the whole exports of domestic produce exhibit
an increase in the last thirty years of less than three per cent. annually, or
a rate considerably lower than that of our population, theugh, in the pre-
vious term of ten years, by the great prosperity from our new form of
government, and the rapid progress in the cultivation of cotton, that in-
crease was near eight per cent.; and in the high price and large exports of
this article in the last term of ten years, it has been about five per cent.
annually. But as that price has of late been unusually high, and is now
lower, and as the demand for cotton abroad in the ensuing year is not
likely to exceed, if it equal, the late customary ratio, and on which some
interesting facts may be seen in the statement annexed, (H,) the value of
our whole domestic exports (over one-half of which now consists of cotton)
will probably be less in 1836 than in 1835.

“2, It may be instructive, in respect to the estimates of our future pro-
ceeds from lands, to recollect that, after the present system commenced, the
sales never amounted, in fact, to one million of acres a year till 1815, nor
to two millions a year till the temptations of the credit system, and_ the
great rise in the price of cotton to 26 and 34 cents per pound, induced
larger purchases, extending to over two millions of acres in 1817, and
about 54 millions ii 1819; “and thus, even fifteen years ago, exceeding In
quantity, by nearly a million of acres, the large sales of 1834, and exceed-
ing them in the sum promised to be paid, by the almost incredible amount
of more than twelve millions of dollars. But the fall of cotton in 1820,
to only about half its former price, combined with other causes, left the
purchasers in debt to the Government over twenty-two millions of dollars,
and with the change from the credit to the cash system, reduced the sales
again to much less than a million of acres a year, caused nearly six mil-
‘ons of the former sales to revert, and kept them down to less than a mil-
lion in every year after, till the rise of cotton in 1825 gave a new impulse,
which being aided by other powerful causes, the sales gradually enlarged

74 [ Doc. No. 146. ]

till they reached a million again, in 1829. Since that, increasing still more
rapidly, they have exceeded, duri ing 1834, four millions of acres, and
during 1835, probably nine millions. Among those other causes, the more
extensive introduction of steam power on the western rivers and northern
lakes, with the public improvements in their navigation, and the increased
facilities of intercourse by railvoads and canals, have of late added much
to the sales of the public lands beyond previous years, and beyond the
proportional increase of population. To the force of these causes have
been joined, during the last three years, as formerly suggested, the effect of
the pre-emption law, the crease in the price of cotton, and the unusual
abundance of surphis capital in 1835 seeking new investments.”

3. “ Beside what has already been remarked on the influence which the
increased cultivation of cotton in this country has in various ways exer-
cised, and is likely to exercise hereafter, on our revenue from customs and
lands, it might be made a subject of further and very interesting inquiry,
in connection with the uncertainty of the estimates on those subjects, affect-
ing, as that cultivation does, more remotely, not only our revenue from
lands and customs, but the balance of trade and the export of specie, as
well as the con tinnance, by means of mutual dependence among great in-
terests, of many of our peaceful and prosperous relations, both at home
and abroad. But without entering, on this occasion, into ‘farther details
concerning any of these points, it may be mentioned as a very striking
result coniected with the last one, and as furnishing a strong presumption
in favor of greater exemption hereafter from fluctuations by war and com-
mercial restrictions, that while the quantity of cotton exported from this
country has increased from half a million of pounds in 1790, to over three
hundred and eighty millions in 1835, and has exceeded in ‘value, during
six of the last ten years, all our other exports of domestic products of

every description, the manufacture of it at home, and chiefly in the
northern States, has increased, from consuming only a few bales move, to
ninety millions of pounds yearly, and to that extent creates a new and
strong bond of reciprocal advantage and harmony; and that while we now
furnish, instead of the small quantity in the first yea ws of our Government,
quite fifteen-sixteenths of the whole consumption of raw cotton by Eng-
land, and seven-tenths of that by France, all the presents fete of it to
Europe from all the rest of the world do not probably equal, if those two
nations could obtain the whole, one-third of what they now consume, or
one-fourth of what they now import from the United States alone; and
thus, while neither of them peodiices any of the raw article, except a little
In some remote dependencies, that they have an annual manuitctire now
relying on it, and chiefly on the United States, equal in France to eighty
millions of dollars, and in England to one hundred and eighty millions of
dollars, and constituting in the latter, after it supplies her own large neces-
sities at home, over one-half in value of her great annual exports to all
quarters of the globe.”

a

vs ; rw ee A ey Be , *
[ Poc. No. 146. | 75
: : :
4.
“ Haports of Cotton.
Quantity. Value.
Year: a l
Pounds, Dollars.
1792 138,328 32,000
1793 AS87089 107,272
1894 1,601,760 | 320,352
| ———————_— —————_—- ——
3)2,227,688 459,624
ot lees ph be (iy aan
742,562 153,208 Average.
1802 274 millions. 51 millions.
1803 Als, do 7% do
1804 Biclas ao G do.
} 5 —_: ——_ SS ee Ce
3)10654 clo 203
35.6 | 6.9 Average. »
1822 | 144-5. 24
ee |
1823 eee 204
QDA . | AQ.3 213 :
1824 142.3, 21%
RE ea ra ar kt ae
nes es ae
« )\40 eu) To bvz
¢ |e a a aS 1) = a
| 153.5 22.1 Average.
= ae = z 3
1832 322+ 312
1833 3244 36
1834 3842 AM}
3)10314 aver
344 Suen Average.

comparison of the quantity and value of our exports in

Novr.— Looking further to the future in connection W

eS

ith the past, a brief
cotton at a few

equi-distant periods, as exhibited in the above table, will serve to illustrate,

in a condensed form, the great influence which the cultivation a
of cotton. alone seem to have exercised, and are likely to exercise hereafter,

on the amount of our whole exports

rectly to affect our importations, and consequent re

of domestic products, and

nd exports

thus indi-

venue from customs.

Doubtless some other cultivation and exports would have taken the place
of cotton in the south had it not been so successfully grown

they probably would have been less

ever substituted for that; because the average increase ©

valuable, and will be so

‘

there; but

hereatter if
£ all our domestic

76 [ Doc. No. 146. ]

of cotton alone has during the last 30 years been on an average near 25 per
cent. annually. But of late the ratio of increase in cotton, though still much
greater than that of other exports, has become diminished and more settled,
having fallen from quite 500 per cent. during the first ten years of our pre-
sent Government, to only about 10 per cent. during the last ten, though the
whole annual quantity now exported exceeds the enormous amount of 380
millions of pounds. ‘This 10 per cent. increase yearly, considering the vast
quantity now grown in the United States, and how fully the cotton raised
in the other quarters of the world has already been excluded from the
European markets, with other circumstances named in the body of the
Teport, may be justly estimated both as a more regular ratio than any
which has’ prevailed heretofore, and as something larger than its probable
increase in the ensuing ten years.”

[ Doc. No. 146. ] oF

While the preceding tables and notes were in the press, Mr. Adams
submitted the following resolution, which was considered and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the ‘Treasury, under whose direction
the printing of certain tables and notes on the subject of cotton, has been
placed by this House, be authorized to add any further explanatory notes
on that subject which may occur to him in the progress of the printing,

78 [ Doc. No. 146. |

_

ADDENDA.

Table A, note 3, page 9. Other statements made in some of the Atlantic
States, and at other periods show a smalier difference between the exports of
1835 and 1836, to the last dates. In some accounts of the exports kept in
the southwest for the current year, the quantity is represented there to be
less at the most recent dates than during the same period of last year by
about 70,000 bales, and the stock on hand to be about 100,000 bales less.

Table B, page 13. Cotton has been raised in | arts and even in Penn-
sylvania. Niles’s Register, February and Marc! 1922, page 371 and 67.
But it is believed not to be raised of late to any citi able extent nerth
of Tennessee and Virginia. This table shows another striking fact: that
considerably over half the whole crop of cotton in the United Siates is now
raised in the new southwestern States, whose outlets are on the Gulf of
Mexico, and where little was grown, and scarce! y any exp sortation made
previous to 1803. :

Table E, note 2, page 18. In the ninth line from the top, the price
named means the price cf common cotton.

Table L, note 9, page 56. Since these tables were transmitted to the
House of Representatives, the original letter which was written in conse-
quence of a circular from Mr. Hamilton, Secretary of the ‘Treasury, on
the subject of manufactures, dated June 22, 1791, from Moses Brown to J.
S. Dexter, dated July 22,1791, has been sent to me.

It confirms the statement in the notes, that the first cotton mill in Rhode
Island was built in 1790, Attempts had been made, a B. says, by him-
self, in 1789, to get the machinery into pence by water, by means of
models for carding and spining, which the State o Madendiitieetts had pro-
cured from abroad. But no mill was actually ame until the autumn of
1789, when one was commenced by the assistance Of Mr. Slater, who. had
then recently come from England, notwithstanding the obstacles which
were opposed to the emigration of artist s, and the exportation of machinery.
About this time a cotton mill was erected at Beverly, Mass. by an incorpo-
rated company. See more in that letter, and in Gales and Seaton’s Doc.
vol. 1, Fimance, page 142. Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures, and
Pennsylvania Mercury, for 1789. It is said that the model of the machine
for weaving by water was precured from England, by some persons in
Delaware, e early as April, 1788. See Penn. Mereury.

Other small additions to the notes of the later tables were introduced
into the body of them in the proper places while they were printing, after
the passage of the resolution, inserted immediately before these addenda.]

atm

(