_Conclusion_
I know it is not fashionable for writers on economic questions to tell
the truth, but the truth should be told, though it kill. When the wail
of distress encircles the world, the man who is linked by "the touch
of nature" which "makes the whole world kin" to the common destiny of
the race universal; who hates injustice wherever it lifts up its head;
who sympathizes with the distressed, the weak, and the friendless in
every corner of the globe, such a man is morally bound to tell the
truth as he conceives it to be the truth.
In these times, when the law-making and enforcing authority is leagued
against the people; when great periodicals--monthly, weekly and
daily--echo the mandates or anticipate the wishes of the powerful men
who produce our social demoralization, it becomes necessary for the
few men who do not agree to the arguments advanced or the interests
sought to be bolstered up, to "cry aloud and spare not." The man who
with the truth in his possession flatters with lies, that "thrift may
follow fawning" is too vile to merit the contempt of honest men.
The government of the United States confiscated as "contraband of war"
the slave population of the South, but it left to the portion of the
unrepentant rebel a far more valuable species of property. The slave,
the perishable wealth, was confiscated to the government and then
manumitted; but property in land, the wealth which perishes not nor
can fly away, and which had made the institution of slavery possible,
was left as the heritage of the robber who had not hesitated to lift
his iconoclastic hand against the liberties of his country. The baron
of feudal Europe would have been paralyzed with astonishment at the
leniency of the conquering invader who should take from him his slave,
subject to mutation, and leave him his landed possessions which are as
fixed as the Universe of Nature. He would ask no more advantageous
concession. But the United States took the slave and left the thing
which gave birth to _chattel slavery_ and which is now fast giving
birth to _industrial slavery_; a slavery more excruciating in its
exactions, more irresponsible in its machinations than that other
slavery, which I once endured. The chattel slave-holder must, to
preserve the value of his property, feed, clothe and house his
property, and give it proper medical attention when disease or
accident threatened its life. But industrial slavery requires no such
care. The new slave-holder is only solicitous of obtaining the maximum
of labor for the minimum of cost. He does not regard the man as of any
consequence when he can no longer produce. Having worked him to death,
or ruined his constitution and robbed him of his labor, he turns him
out upon the world to live upon the charity of mankind or to die of
inattention and starvation. He knows that it profits him nothing to
waste time and money upon a disabled industrial slave. The multitude
of laborers from which he can recruit his necessary laboring force is
so enormous that solicitude on his part for one that falls by the
wayside would be a gratuitous expenditure of humanity and charity
which the world is too intensely selfish and materialistic to expect
him. Here he forges wealth and death at one and the same time. He
could not do this if our social system did not confer upon him a
monopoly of the soil from which subsistence must be derived, because
the industrial slave, given an equal opportunity to produce for
himself, would not produce for another. On the other hand the large
industrial operations, with the multitude of laborers from which Adam
Smith declares employers grow rich, as far as this applies to the
soil, would not be possible, since the vast volume of increased
production brought about by the industry of the multitude of co-equal
small farmers would so reduce the cost price of food products as to
destroy the incentive to speculation in them, and at the same time
utterly destroy the necessity or the possibility of famines, such as
those which have from time to time come upon the Irish people. There
could be no famine, in the natural course of things, where all had an
opportunity to cultivate as much land as they could wherever they
found any not already under cultivation by some one else. It needs no
stretch of the imagination to see what a startling tendency the
announcement that all vacant land was free to settlement upon
condition of cultivation would have to the depopulation of
over-crowded cities like New York, Baltimore and Savannah, where the
so-called pressure of population upon subsistence has produced a
hand-to-hand fight for existence by the wage-workers in every avenue
of industry.
This is no fancy picture. It is a plain, logical deduction of what
would result from the restoration to the people of that equal chance
in the race of life which every man has a right to expect, to demand,
and to exact as a condition of his membership of organized society.
The wag who started the "forty acres and a mule" idea among the black
people of the South was a wise fool; wise in that he enunciated a
principle which every argument of sound policy should have dictated,
_upon the condition that the forty acres could in no wise be
alienated_, and that it could be regarded _only_ as _property_ as
_long as it was cultivated_; and a fool because he designed simply to
impose upon the credulity and ignorance of his victims. But the
justness of the "forty acre" donation cannot be controverted. In the
first place, the slave had earned this miserable stipend from the
government by two hundred years of unrequited toil; and, secondly, as
a free man, he was inherently entitled to so much of the soil of his
country as would suffice to maintain him in the freedom thrust upon
him. To tell him he was a free man, and at the same time shut him off
from free access to the soil upon which he had been reared, without a
penny in his pocket, and with an army of children at his
coat-tail--some of his reputed wife's children being the illegitimate
offspring of a former inhuman master--was to add insult to injury, to
mix syrup and hyssop, to aggravate into curses the pretended
conferrence of blessings.
When I think of the absolutely destitute condition of the colored
people of the South at the close of the Rebellion; when I remember the
moral and intellectual enervation which slavery had produced in them;
when I remember that not only were they thus bankrupt, but that they
were absolutely and unconditionally cut off from the soil, with
absolutely no right or title in it, I am surprised,--not that they
have already got a respectable slice of landed interests; not that
they have taken hold eagerly of the advantages of moral and
intellectual opportunities of development placed in their reach by the
charitable philanthropy of good men and women; not that they have
bought homes and supplied them with articles of convenience and
comfort, often of luxury--but I am surprised that the race did not
turn robbers and highwaymen, and, in turn, terrorize and rob society
as society had for so long terrorized and robbed them. The thing is
strange, marvelous, phenomenal in the extreme. Instead of becoming
outlaws, as the critical condition would seem to have indicated, the
black men of the South _went manfully to work_ to better their own
condition and the crippled condition of the country which had been
produced by the ravages of internecine rebellion; _while the white men
of the South, the capitalists, the land-sharks, the poor white trash,
and the nondescripts, with a thousand years of Christian civilization
and culture behind them, with "the boast of chivalry, the pomp of
power," these white scamps, who had imposed upon the world the idea
that they were paragons of virtue and the heaven-sent vicegerents of
civil power, organized themselves into a band of outlaws, whose
concatenative chain of auxiliaries ran through the entire South, and
deliberately proceeded to murder innocent men and women for POLITICAL
REASONS and to systematically rob them of their honest labor because
they were too accursedly lazy to labor themselves._
But this highly abnormal, unnatural condition of things is fast
passing away. The white man having asserted his superiority in the
matters of assassination and robbery, has settled down upon a barrel
of dynamite, as he did in the days of slavery, and will await the
explosion with the same fatuity and self-satisfaction true of him in
other days. But as convulsions from within are more violent and
destructive than convulsions from without, being more deepseated and
therefore more difficult to reach, the next explosion will be more
disastrous, more far-reaching in its havoc than the one which
metamorphosed social conditions in the South, and from the dreadful
reactions of which we are just now recovering.
As I have said elsewhere, the future struggle in the South will be,
not between white men and black men, but between capital and labor,
landlord and tenant. Already the cohorts are marshalling to the fray;
already the forces are mustering to the field at the sound of the
slogan.
The same battle will be fought upon Southern soil that is in
preparation in other states where the conditions are older in
development but no more deep-seated, no more pernicious, no more
blighting upon the industries of the country and the growth of the
people.
It is not my purpose here to enter into an extended analysis of the
foundations upon which our land system rests, nor to give my views as
to how matters might be remedied. I may take up the question at some
future time. It is sufficient for my purpose to have indicated that
the social problems in the South, as they exfoliate more and more as
resultant upon the war, will be found to be the same as those found in
every other section of our country; and to have pointed out that the
questions of "race," "condition" "politics," etc., will all properly
adjust themselves with the advancement of the people in wealth,
education, and forgetfulness of the unhappy past.
The hour is approaching when the laboring classes of our country,
North, East, West and South, will recognize that they have a _common
cause_, a _common humanity_ and a _common enemy_; and that, therefore,
if they would triumph over wrong and place the laurel wreath upon
triumphant justice, without distinction of race or of previous
condition _they must unite_! And unite they will, for "a fellow
feeling makes us wond'rous kind." When the issue is properly joined,
the rich, be they black or be they white, will be found upon the same
side; and the poor, be they black or be they white, will be found on
the same side.
_Necessity knows no law and discriminates in favor of no man or race._
APPENDIX
I append to this volume a portion of the testimony of Mr. John
Caldwell Calhoun because of the uniform fairness with which he treated
the race and labor problem in the section of country where he is an
extensive landowner and employer of labor.
Mr. Calhoun's testimony was given before the Blair Senate Committee on
Education and Labor and will be found in the Committee's Report as to
_The Relations between Labor and Capital_. (Vol. II, pp. 157).
NEW YORK, _Thursday, September 13, 1883_
LABOR IN THE SOUTHWEST
JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN sworn and examined
By the CHAIRMAN:
Question. Where do you reside?--Answer. In Chicot County,
Arkansas.
Q. State to the committee, if you please, where you were
born, of what family connection you are, and what have been
your opportunities for becoming acquainted with the past and
the present condition of agricultural labor in the Southern
States.
--A. I was born in Marengo County, Alabama. My father was a
planter there before the war.
Q. He was a son of John C. Calhoun, the statesman?--A. He
was a son of Mr. John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina.
Q. You are his grandson, then?
--A. Yes, sir; I am his grandson. My father was Col. Andrew
P. Calhoun. I was reared in South Carolina. In 1854 my father
removed his residence from his plantations in Alabama to Fort
Hill, South Carolina, near Pendleton, where I was raised. I
have been identified with the agricultural interest of the
South from my earliest recollections, and have been a
practical cotton planter myself since the war, giving my own
personal attention to my interests since 1869.
Q. When did you remove from South Carolina?
--A. I removed from South Carolina to Chicot County,
Arkansas, in 1869.
Q. Until 1869 you had been a resident of South Carolina?
--A. Yes, sir.
Q. And of course very familiar with the condition of things
on the Atlantic coast. Since that time you have been in the
Mississippi Valley?
--A. Yes, sir; my experience as a cotton planter and with
the laborers of the South is confirmed, I may say, almost
entirely to the Mississippi Valley, for I left South
Carolina so soon after the war that things had hardly shaped
themselves there so that I could form an accurate estimate
of the labor or the condition of affairs in South Carolina
or on the Atlantic coast.
The CHAIRMAN. Not having had a personal acquaintance with
Mr. Calhoun, and learning of his rare opportunities to give
valuable information to the committee, and of his presence
in the city, I addressed him a letter, calling attention to
the subject-matter upon which we should like information,
and which I had reason to think he could give us better than
almost any one else, indicating certain questions which I
would like to have him prepared to answer, and receiving a
courteous reply, expressing a willingness to oblige the
committee, I have called him before the committee, and will
now read the questions:--
1st. What is the condition of the laborers in your
section?
2d. Under what system are the laborers in your section
employed?
3d. When hired for wages what is paid?
4th. What division is made between labor and capital of
their joint production when you work on shares?
5th. When you rent what division is made?
6th. How many hours do the laborers work?
7th. Under what system do you work?
8th. What is the relation existing between the planters and
their employees?
9th. What danger is there of strikes?
10th. How can the interest of the laborers of your section
be best subserved?
If you have prepared answers to these questions, and can
give your answers consecutively, I would like you to do so.
The WITNESS. I have prepared replies in order that I might
save the committee time as well as condense my ideas.
Q. 1. What is the condition of the laborers in your
section?
--A. The laborers in the Mississippi Valley are
agricultural. But few whites are employed; they soon become
landowners or tenants. Your question, therefore, reduces
itself to, What is the condition of the negroes? I should
say good, as compared with a few years ago, and improving.
You must recollect that it has only been 18 years since the
negroes emerged from slavery without a dollar and with no
education, and that for generations they had been taught to
rely entirely upon others for guidance and support. They
became, therefore, at once the easy prey of unscrupulous
men, who used them for their personal aggrandizement, were
subjected to every evil influence, and did not discover for
years the impositions practiced upon them. They were
indolent and extravagant, and eager to buy on a credit
everything the planter or merchant would sell them. The
planter had nothing except the land, which, with the crop to
be grown, was mortgaged generally for advances. If he
refused to indulge his laborers in extravagant habits during
the year, by crediting them for articles not absolutely
necessary, his action was regarded as good grounds for them
to quit work, and there were those present who were always
ready to use this as an argument to array the negroes
against the proprietors. This, of course, demoralized the
country to a very great extent, and it has only been in the
past few years the negro laborers have realized their true
condition and gone to work with a view of making a support
for themselves and families. There is yet much room for
improvement, but they will improve just as they gain
experience and become self-reliant.
Considering their condition after emancipation and the evil
influences to which they have been subjected, even the small
advancement they have made seems surprising.
Q. 2. Under what systems are the laborers in your section
employed?
--A. There are three methods: we hire for wages, for a part
of the crop, or we rent.
Q. 3. When hired for wages what is paid?
--A. When hired by the month we pay unskilled field hands
from $10 to $20 per month and board. When hired by the day,
for unskilled laborers, from 75 cents to $1. Teamsters, $1 a
day and board. Artisans, from $2 to $5. In addition to their
wages and board, the laborers are furnished, free of cost, a
house, fuel, and a garden spot varying from half to one
acre; also the use of wagon and team with which to haul
their fuel and supplies, and pasturage, where they have
cattle and hogs, which they are encouraged to raise.
Q. 4. What division is made between labor and capital of
their joint production when you work on shares?
--A. I doubt if there is greater liberality shown to
laborers in any portion of the world than is done under this
system. The proprietor furnishes the land and houses,
including dwelling, stables, and outhouses, pays the taxes,
makes all necessary improvements, keeps up repairs and
insurance, gives free of cost a garden spot, fuel, pasturage
for the stock owned by the laborer, and allows the use of
his teams for hauling fuel and family supplies, provides
mules or horses, wagons, gears, implements, feed for teams,
the necessary machinery for ginning, or, in short, every
expense of making the crop and preparing it for market, and
then divides equally the whole gross proceeds with the
laborers. In addition to all this, the proprietor frequently
mortgages his real estate to obtain means to advance to the
laborers supplies on their portion of the crop yet to be
grown, thus mortgaging what he actually possesses, and
taking a security not yet in existence, and which depends
not only upon the vicissitudes of the seasons, but the
faithfulness of the laborers themselves. Under this system
thrifty, industrious laborers ought soon to become
landowners. But, owing to indolence, the negroes, except
where they are very judiciously managed and encouraged, fail
to take advantage of the opportunities offered them to raise
the necessaries of life. They idle away all the time not
actually necessary to make and gather their corn and cotton,
and improvidently spend what balance may remain after paying
for the advances made to them.
Q. 5. When you rent, what division is made?
--A. Where the laborer owns his own teams, gears, and
implements necessary for making a crop, he gets two-thirds
or three-fourths of the crop, according to the quality and
location of the land.
Under the rental system proper, where a laborer is
responsible and owns his team, &c., first-class land is
rented to him for $8 or $10 per acre. With the land go
certain privileges, such as those heretofore enumerated.
Q. 6. How many hours do the laborers work?
--A. This is an extremely difficult question to answer.
Under the wages system, from sunrise to sunset, with a rest
for dinner of from one and one-half to three hours,
according to the season of the year.
Under the share or rental system there is much time lost;
for instance, they seldom work on Saturday at all, and as
the land is fertile, and a living can be made on a much
smaller acreage than a hand can cultivate, they generally
choose one-third less than they should, and it is safe to
say that one third of the time which could and would be
utilized by an industrious laborer is wasted in fishing, and
hunting, and idleness.
Q. 7. Under what system do you work?
--A. We are forced to adopt all systems heretofore stated.
We prefer, however, the tenant system. We wish to make small
farmers our laborers, and bring them up as nearly as
possible to the standard of the small white farmers. But
this can only be done gradually, because the larger portion
of the negroes are without any personal property. We could
not afford to sell the mules, implements, &c., where a
laborer has nothing. Therefore the first year we contract to
work with him on the half-share system, and require him to
plant a portion of the land he cultivates in corn, hay,
potatoes, &c. For this portion we charge him a reasonable
rent, to be paid out of his part of the cotton raised on the
remainder. In this way all of the supplies raised belong to
him, and at the end of the first year he will, if
industrious, find himself possessed of enough supplies to
support and feed a mule. We then sell him a mule and
implements, preserving, of course, liens until paid. At the
end of the second year, if he should be unfortunate, and not
quite pay out, we carry the balance over to the next year,
and in this way we gradually make a tenant of him. We
encourage him in every way in our power to be economical,
industrious, and prudent, to surround his home with
comforts, to plant an orchard and garden, and to raise his
own meat, and to keep his own cows, for which he has free
pasturage. Our object is to attach him as much as possible
to his home. Under whatever system we work, we require the
laborer to plant a part of his land in food crops and the
balance in cotton with which to pay his rent and give him
ready money. We consider this system as best calculated to
advance him. Recognizing him as a citizen, we think we
should do all in our power to fit him for the duties of
citizenship. We think there is no better method of doing
this than by interesting him in the production of the soil,
surrounding him with home comforts, and imposing upon him
the responsibilities of his business. Who will make the best
citizen or laborer, he who goes to a home with a week's
rations, wages spent, wife and children hired out, or he who
returns to a home surrounded with the ordinary comforts, and
wife and children helping him to enjoy the products of their
joint labor? We recognize that no country can be prosperous
unless the farmers are prosperous. Under our system, we seek
to have our property cultivated by a reliable set of
tenants, who will be able to always pay their rent and have
a surplus left.
Again, a large portion of the cotton crop of the country is
made by small white farmers. These to a great extent are
raising their own supplies, and making cotton a surplus
crop. The number who do this will increase year by year. It
must be apparent that the large planters cannot afford to
hire labor and compete with those whose cotton costs nothing
except the expenditure of their own muscle and energy. The
natural consequence resulting from this condition of things
is that the negro, if he is to prosper, must gradually
become a small farmer, either as a tenant or the owner of
the soil, and look himself upon cotton as a surplus crop.
Q. 8. What is the relation existing between the planters
and their employers?
--A. Friendly and harmonious. The planter feel an interest
in the welfare of his laborers, and the latter in turn look
to him for advice and assistance.
Q. 9. What danger is there of strikes?
--A. Very little. As a rule the laborers are interested in
the production of the soil, and a strike would be as
disastrous to them as it would be to the proprietors. There
is really very little conflict between labor and capital.
The conflict in my section, if any should come in future,
will not assume the form of labor against capital, but of
race against race.
Q. 10. How can the interest of the laborers of your section
be best subserved?
--A. By the establishment by the States of industrial
schools, by the total elimination from Federal politics of
the so-called negro question, and by leaving the solution to
time, and a reduction of taxation, both indirect and
incidental. It is a noteworthy fact that the improvement of
my section has kept pace, _pari passu_, with the cessation
of the agitation of race issues. The laborers share equally
with the landowners the advantages of the improvement, and
there is every reason to expect increasing and permanent
prosperity if all questions between the landowners and their
laborers in our section are left to the natural adjustment
of the demand for labor. For many years the negroes regarded
themselves as the wards of the Federal Government, and it
were well for them to understand that they have nothing more
to expect from the Federal Government, than the white man,
and that, like him, their future depends upon their own
energy, industry, and economy. This can work no hardship.
The constant demand for labor affords them the amplest
protection. Nothing, probably, would contribute so
immediately to their prosperity as the reduction of the
tariff. They are the producers of no protected articles. The
onerous burdens of the tariff naturally fall heaviest upon
those who are large consumers of protected articles and
produce only the great staples, grain and cotton, which form
the basis of our export trade, and which can, from their
very nature in this country, receive no protection from a
tariff.
Q. In your own State, Arkansas, what portion of the land
cultivated and what proportion of the acreage of the land
cultivated is in the form of large plantations?
--A. That lying along the Mississippi and Arkansas Rivers.
It would be hard for me to estimate the proportions. I do
not know that I have ever considered it, but the portions
which are cultivated in large plantations lie directly on
the Mississippi River in front of the State of Arkansas and
on the Arkansas River. The rest of the State is cultivated
very much by small white farmers.
Q. And are the productions of the small holdings and large
holdings similar; I inquire as to cotton particularly?
--A. No, sir. In the interior of the State cotton is made a
surplus crop entirely.
Q. What are the principal crops there?
--A. Our people are raising their own supplies, fruits and
vegetables. For instance, it was stated by the land agent of
the Iron Mountain Railroad at a public meeting in Little
Rock some weeks ago that that road had carried out from the
State of Arkansas in one week 800,000 pounds of green peas
and strawberries.
Q. To what market?
--A. To Saint Louis, going to different markets. The section
of the State lying between Little Rock and Fort Smith is
peculiarly adapted for growing fruit, and there is a very
large fruit trade.
Q. What kinds of fruit?
--A. I might say almost all kinds, but particularly apples;
that section of country is noted for its apples.
Q. Are peaches raised there also?
--A. Very fine, indeed.
Q. Plums?
--A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are oranges raised there?
--A. No, sir; we do not raise any of the tropical fruits,
such as oranges, bananas, and lemons.
Q. How in regard to oats, rye, corn, wheat, potatoes, and
crops of that description?
--A. If our exhibit, which is now being made at the
Louisville Exposition, can be seen it will compare
favorably with that of any other portion of the United
States.
Q. Even with the Northwest?
--A. Even with the Northwest.
Q. Would you judge that one-half the cultivated surface of
Arkansas is made up of the larger plantations?
--A. No, sir; I should not say more than a third, as a
rough estimate.
Q. Upon these plantations is there any crop raised for
consumption anywhere but upon the plantations, save the
cotton?
--A. Only in a very limited way. We raise Irish potatoes
for the northern markets, and it is an extremely profitable
and productive crop with us.
Q. What is the home market price?
--A. We do not sell these potatoes at home at all. We get
them to Saint Louis, Chicago, and Cincinnati before the
ground is really thawed out up there. We get from $5 to $10
a barrel for them.
Q. A barrel of about 3 bushels?
--A. A barrel of about 3 bushels. That of course is a fancy
price, and only lasts until the product comes in from other
sources.
Q. That is an advantage no farmer has elsewhere in the
United States than in Arkansas?
--A. In Arkansas and Louisiana, on the Mississippi River.
Q. Are potatoes raised largely in Louisiana?
--A. Yes, sir; in parts. The cultivation of the alluvial
lands in Louisiana is very similar to what I am speaking of
in Arkansas.
Q. Is the potato of good quality raised on those rich
lands?
--A. Of very fine quality.
Q. Can you give the average crop of potatoes per acre?
--A. I cannot, as I have never raised any myself for market.
We leave it almost entirely to our small farmers to do that
sort of thing.
Q. About 300 bushels per acre, Senator Pugh says. This is
the Irish potato you speak of, not the sweet?
--A. The Irish potato. We raise also the sweet potato there.
I have raised sweet potatoes that weighed five pounds.
Q. And of good quality?
--A. Of fine quality.
Q. The size does not depreciate the quality, then?
--A. Not at all.
Q. They, I suppose are raised for exportation from the
State?
--A. No, sir; they are raised almost entirely for home
consumption by our farmers.
Q. Do your people at home prefer the sweet to the Irish
potato for their own use?
--A. I cannot say they do. I think they raise both in equal
proportions.
Q. Which, on the whole, is the most profitable crop to
raise of potatoes?
--A. The Irish potatoes because we export and sell them. The
sweet potato does not mature until the fall of the year.
Q. Upon your plantations you encourage the raising of the
variety of crops you have spoken of for consumption, by the
laborers, and for the use of the planter, I suppose, but not
for exportation and sale?
--A. Not for sale. We merely raise them for home consumption
in case of a disaster to our cotton crops. The cotton crop
is subjected to very many vicissitudes, and we want to have
all our supplies at home, so that in case of a failure of
the cotton crop we have our living made at least.
Q. Are the planters and those who labor upon the
plantations substantially independent of the small farmers
surrounding them, or do they constitute consumers for the
smaller farmers in the interior?
--A. We have our own gardens, and generally raise our own
supplies, but every planter interests himself to find a
market for all the products of his laborers. For instance,
we encourage them to raise poultry to a great extent. If
they have a surplus of potatoes, or eggs, or chickens, we
will buy it and create a market for it, and ship the
articles off in order that if they have any surplus they may
realize on it. On the Mississippi River we have nearly all
the markets. Boats are passing there every day going
directly by the banks of the river. We have the markets of
New Orleans, Vicksburg, Memphis, Saint Louis, Chicago, and
we have, you may say, the whole country open before us where
we can create a market. We make the best market we can for
the products of our small farmers.
Q. Do you know something of the prices in the North for the
various crops you have mentioned, and if so, how do they
compare with the price realized by your laborers at home?
--A. Our laborers realize the prices of the Northwest. We
ship the articles for them. For instance, a negro has
several barrels of potatoes; I consign them to my merchants
in Saint Louis, and have them sold for his account.
Q. There are no middlemen, really; you transact this
business for them?
--A. I transact this business for them direct.
Q. Charging them simply the cost of transportation?
--A. You are asking me the relationship between the
proprietor and the negro. There are a great many stores on
the Mississippi River, and negroes sometimes go and trade
directly. There are a great many properties in the
Mississippi Valley owned by non-residents. There are some
plantations rented out to negroes that there is not a white
man on at all. The proprietor comes and collects his rent at
the end of the year when the crop is made; or it may be his
negro tenant consigns the cotton to a factor in New Orleans.
Q. Where is the proprietor himself usually resident?
--A. In different States. We have people who are proprietors
of real estate who live out in Orange, New Jersey; some live
in South Carolina; some live in Georgia, in the various
States, but they own property with us, and this property is
rented directly to the negroes. Generally, though, there is
a responsible manager in charge of this property, but there
are instances where there is not even a white man on the
place at all.
Q. In those instances, how do matters work? Do the negroes
conduct affairs with reasonable prudence, and consult the
interest of the owners?
--A. No, sir; in these instances the property generally goes
to decay gradually; the negro will not make an improvement
on real estate at all.
Q. In these cases do the negroes work together and carry on
the plantation as a whole, or is the plantation cut up into
small holdings and rented out to negroes?
--A. It is cut into small portions and rented according to
the size of the family. Some men work two mules; some four.
It is regulated better by the number of animals he works.
For instance, a mule can cultivate in that country with ease
about fifteen acres. A man with two mules would work thirty
acres; a man with four, sixty, and so on. I know some
negroes who work eight and ten mules that they have paid
for; but I will say this right here, and it shows the
necessity of the education of the negro and of fitting him
for the condition of being able to take care of himself and
make his own contracts and sign his own name to a contract:
I have known of numerous instances where negroes, working
under the management of a proprietor of a plantation, have
made enough money to buy a home; such a one will go back out
in the hills, that section of country lying back of the
alluvial lands, and buy a home. In three or four years he
will move back to the river again, having lost all his
property, mortgaged it to some storekeeper, become
extravagant, and that storekeeper in a short time--three or
four years probably--will have absorbed all he had earned
under the management of a planter.
Q. About that store system; how extensive is it, and how
great an evil does it constitute?
--A. It constitutes a very considerable evil, but you
cannot blame the storekeeper for it, for this reason, or he
can only be blamed partially: Capital in that country is
very limited. When you consider the fact that New Orleans,
which handles the cotton crop of that country, has a smaller
banking capital than any one of your little towns in
Massachusetts or New Hampshire, it shows at once that there
is not enough capital to be advanced to the country people
at reasonable enough rates of interest for those people to
conduct a strictly legitimate business. I have known capital
to cost in New Orleans, counting the commissions, 15 or 20
per cent, for money loaned. The storekeeper who borrows
money to conduct his business with has to buy his goods from
some merchant at some point who must make his profit. He
cannot go directly to the producer, because he has got to
have somebody to help him out if his capital falls short.
Therefore, before the goods get down to him, they cost him
perhaps 30, 40, or 50 percent more than the first price.
Therefore he has to tack on an enormous profit to bring
himself out whole and pay his expenses in order to meet his
obligations with the factor in New Orleans. There is,
however, among a certain class, as there would be in all
sections of the country, as exists right here in New York,
or anywhere else, a set of people who will always prey upon
ignorance. The best protection that can be afforded to the
laborer of that country is education; fit him for his
condition of life, that he may protect himself.
Q. Do you mean to be understood that these traders do
business upon borrowed capital?
--A. Almost entirely.
Q. Their capital is hired in New Orleans?
--A. Or any points they may go for it; I merely mention New
Orleans as one point. A number of our people borrow money in
Memphis, and some borrow money in Vicksburg.
Q. Do you know whether those people to any extent borrow
capital of Northern capitalists in New York and other
portions of the North
--A. That class of people do not. In the last few years--I
might say almost within the last two years--Northern capital
has begun to seek investment in our section of the country,
but only upon mortgages on real estate. The class of
storekeepers I allude to generally have no real estate at
all; they only have their stores.
Q. Your system by which the planter makes a market for the
surplus productions of the laborers upon his plantation
dispenses with a middleman, and enables the laborer to make
a saving, whereas, if he goes to the hills he makes a loss?
--A. Yes, sir. I will put it more definitely: As long as he
is under the guidance and care of the proprietor of the
plantation he prospers, the planter, as we express it in
that country, "loaning him our aid"; we make it very
expressive to the negro, we loan him our aid, that is, he
must follow our advice, and he has learned to do that, and
by doing that he accumulates; but when thrown upon his own
resources--there are individual exceptions, of course, where
a good many negroes prosper themselves when thrown upon
their own resources in Arkansas--but as a general fact,
where he leaves the guidance and care of the proprietor of a
plantation and subjects himself just as any one else does to
the common trading with storekeepers, in a very few years he
loses what he has accumulated.
Q. Under these favorable circumstances which surround the
laborer on the plantation one would think he ought to
accumulate; but I understand you that as a rule he is rather
improvident and fails to accumulate. To what do you
attribute that improvidence on the part of the negro
laborer?
--A. It is simply from the want of a proper appreciation of
the opportunities of advancement from his condition. The
negroes are just beginning, as I expressed it, to realize
the responsibilities of life, and just as they begin to
realize the responsibilities of life here, they begin to
prosper. The prosperity of the South has only begun in the
last few years, and it has begun to increase just as the
race issue has ceased. I will demonstrate that to you by a
little paragraph I cut out of the _New York Herald_ last
night, taken from the New Orleans _Times-Democrat_. If you
take the assessed valuation of real estate in Alabama, in
1879 it was at $117,486,581; in 1883 it is assessed at
$152,920,115. There has been that increase in four years
from $117,000,000 to $152,000,000. Now let us take the State
of Arkansas: in 1879 our real estate was valued at
$86,892,541; in 1883 it is valued at $136,000,000. It goes
on just in that same proportion. For instance, this shows
that in eight of the Southern and Southwestern States there
has been an increase of nearly half a billion dollars--that
is, $494,836,686--in value of taxable property during the
short period of four years.
I happened to pick up this book last night. If I had an
opportunity I could have gotten some statistics to show you
the increased production in these different States, and how
completely it has taken place, as the laborer has begun to
rely on himself and been thrown on his resources.
Q. Have you observed the origin of these statistics?
--A. They come from the New Orleans _Times-Democrat_. I will
read this in order that they may be known. This is from the
_Herald_ of yesterday:
SOUTHERN PROGRESS
The New Orleans TIMES-DEMOCRAT has gathered from
trustworthy sources and given to the public valuable
statistics showing the industrial progress made in the
Southern States during the past four years. This covers the
period since 1879, the year to which the figures of the
latest national census apply. The census returns show a
marvelous material growth in the South during the preceding
ten years. But, according to the reports published by our
New Orleans contemporary, the progress of the past four
years is greater and more wonderful than that achieved
during the decade between the census years.
Taking the important item of assessed value of property, a
comparison between the years 1879 and 1883 gives the
following remarkable results:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Tax Assessment Tax
States 1883 rate 1879 rate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama $152,920,115 6-1/2 $117,486,581 7
Arkansas 136,000,000 7 86,892,541 6-1/2
Florida 56,000,000 5 29,471,648 7
Georgia 300,000,000 2-1/2 135,659,530 5
Louisiana 200,000,000 6 209,361,402 6
Mississippi 116,288,810 2-1/2 129,308,345 3-1/2
Tennessee 252,289,873 2 223,211,345 1
Texas 500,000,000 3 304,470,736 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,710,498,798 4-1/2 1,215,662,128 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This shows that in eight Southern and Southwestern States
there has been an increase of nearly half a billion
dollars--$494,836,668--in the value of taxable property
during the short period of four years, while the rate of
taxation has been actually reduced. At the same time liberal
appropriations have been made for schools, public
improvements, and other useful purposes. "Nor is this
marvelous advance in valuation," says the _Times-Democrat_,
"the result of any inflation in value, but the natural
sequence of grand crops, new industries developed, new
manufactories, mines, and lumber mills established."
The extension of railroads has been hardly less
astonishing. In the eight States above enumerated there were
in 1879 11,604 miles of railroad. There are now 17,891
miles, showing an increase in four years of 6,287 miles. The
agricultural progress made is shown by the fact that the
value of raw products raised in these States, including all
crops, lumber, cattle, and wool, has advanced from
$398,000,000 in 1879 to $567,000,000 in 1883, or an increase
of $169,000,000. During this period the mineral output of
Alabama alone has increased from $4,000,000 to $19,000,000,
and the lumber product of Arkansas from $1,790,000 to
$8,000,000.
The trade of New Orleans is a barometer of Southern
industry and commerce. The value of domestic produce in that
city in 1881-82 was $159,000,000; in 1882-83 it was
$200,000,000. The value of exports of domestic produce to
foreign countries in the former year amounted to
$68,000,000; in the latter it reached $95,000,000.
These figures tell a remarkable story of recent progress in
the Southern States. Always rich in natural resources, the
South has long been poor through lack of development. It has
at last entered upon a new era of industrial activity, and
is now making rapid strides toward a stage of material
prosperity commensurate with its great natural wealth.--_New
York Herald_, September 12,1883.
Now, here is quite a remarkable fact to which I wish to
call your attention, to show you the opportunities for labor
existing in the South and what is the condition of certain
counties in the South. I hold in my hand a book that is
compiled for the benefit of the Georgia Pacific Railroad,
but I happened to find it in my room and thought these
matters would be interesting.
Q. The data you consider reliable?
--A. What I read I think comes from the census report; I
think this is reliable:
In this connection let us glance at Montgomery
County, Alabama, which, although not in the belt
we are studying, is on the same prairie formation
crossed by the Georgia Pacific Railway, on the
edge of Mississippi. Compare it with Butler
County, Ohio, which "shows the best record of any
county in the West." In live stock Montgomery has
$1,748,273; Butler, $1,333,592.
That is the largest producing county in Ohio as compared
with Montgomery County, Alabama, before the war.
Montgomery had 63,134 hogs; Butler, 51,640.
Animals slaughtered: Montgomery, $336,915;
Butler, $318,274. In grain Butler was
considerably ahead, but in roots Montgomery led.
Montgomery doubled Butler in the production of
wool, and had its cotton crop to show besides.
The total value of the crops of Montgomery County
was $3,264,170; those of Butler only $1,671,132.
There is Montgomery County, Alabama, compared with the
leading producing county in Ohio.
Q. Do you know as to the relative size of the two counties?
--A. I think it was given here:
A handsome triumph for the Alabama county! And
yet Montgomery is not up to the average of the
prairie counties of Alabama.
I do not know the relative size. Here is a fact to which I
wish to call particular attention:
We have examined the mortality tables of the
United States census for 1880, and find that as
regards health, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi
make a better showing than some of the oldest and
most densely populated Northern States.
There is generally an idea prevailing that the Southern
States are very unhealthy. It is a point that bears directly
on our labor question, and for that reason I wish to call
special attention to this table, which is taken directly
from the census:
ANNUAL DEATH RATE FOR EACH THOUSAND OF POPULATION
New York 17.38
Pennsylvania 14.92
Virginia 16.32
Massachusetts 18.59
Kentucky 14.39
Georgia 13.97
Alabama 14.20
Mississippi 12.89
Mississippi has the smallest average death rate of any of
that number of States which I have enumerated.
Q. I suppose the circumstance that the average death rate
is larger in cities ought to be taken into account, the
Southern population being mostly rural, is it not?
--A. The Southern population is to a very great extent
rural--Still there are cities in Georgia which I suppose in
proportion to our rural population would not make the latter
in excess of what it is here. If you take your rural
population here and in New Jersey, where you are densely
populated, we are no more densely populated in the
proportion of our city population to the country than you
are here, I think.
Q. Of the population, which is, as a rule, the more healthy
in the South, the colored or the white population?
By Mr. PUGH:
Q. There must be some qualification of that difference
between the death rate between such States as Massachusetts,
for instance, and Georgia, on account of the fact--which I
suppose must be conceded--that in these new States
population is younger and more vigorous than in the older
States. The emigration to these States has been of the
younger and more vigorous population, not so liable to die
as those who remain behind and are older?
--A. There has been but very little emigration into these
States up to this census.
MR. PUGH. That is the fact to some extent, I suppose,
anyway.
The CHAIRMAN. In that same connection, I suppose, should be
borne in mind the fact that the population of these Eastern
States is largely re-enforced by immigration from Europe,
and that is of the younger and more vigorous European
population, and I do not know but what the people in
Massachusetts will insist upon it that they are as young and
as vigorous as anybody.
Mr. PUGH. I have no doubt. I saw a great many very old
people there.
The WITNESS. I merely mentioned this because I wanted to do
away with the impression which generally exists that the
Southern States are very unhealthy.
Mr. PUGH. I have no doubt that what you state is true as a
general fact.
The WITNESS. Now, to bear out the assertion which I made
that the prosperity of the negroes began to increase with
the cessation of race issues in the South, which has been so
apparent to me that I can almost mark the time that it
began, look at the cotton crop that is being made to a great
extent by small farmers; look at the increase of the cotton
crop in the different States in the last few years. For
instance, take Georgia: in 1870 she made 473,934 bales of
cotton; in 1880 she made 814,441, an increase of 75 per
cent. Alabama in 1870 produced 429,482 bales; and in 1880
699,654, an increase of 62 per cent. Mississippi in 1870
produced 564,938 bales; in 1880 she produced 955,808 bales,
an increase of 69 per cent.
Here is a very significant fact also with regard to the
condition of our laborers in the South, and it shows one of
the disadvantages we have had to labor under. During the
war, and from the results of the war, nearly all of our
live stock was destroyed, a great portion of it was
destroyed, which left us after the war without the means of
raising our own meat and such supplies at home, and took
away from the South a great portion of our wealth, for we
know that cattle, hogs &c., increase in arithmetical
progress. If you have a hog, this year she bears so many
pigs, and in a couple of years those pigs bear so many, and
so on. But we were left without live stock. I have here a
table which shows, even under those difficulties, the
increase in that respect in the Southern States of live
stock. These are very significant figures. It is entirely an
accident that I happened to get hold of them last night. The
live stock of New York in 1870 was 5,286,421; in 1880,
5,422,238, an increase of 2 per cent. In Pennsylvania it was
4,484,748 in 1870; in 1880, 5,255,204, an increase of 17 per
cent. In Georgia, in 1870, it was 2,275,137; in 1880,
3,139,101, an increase of 38 per cent. In Alabama it was
1,606,299 in 1870, and in 1880, 2,586,221, an increase of 61
per cent, and in Mississippi, in 1870, it was 1,724,295, and
in 1880, 2,398,334, an increase of 38 per cent. This shows
that with all the disadvantages the South had to contend
with of their stock cattle being destroyed, the natural
advantages of climate and pasturage, to which I attribute
it, existing in the South have enabled them to increase more
rapidly their live stock than any other of the States of the
Union. That shows clearly the advantages which that country
offers for immigration and labor. This is an advantage to
labor. As I stated in my written reply to your submitted
questions, we work but few white laborers in my section of
the country. Why? Because they soon become land-owners with
the opportunities which present themselves to them. The
white men will not be there more than two or three years
before he has bought and paid for his land in almost every
instance.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Q. And he becomes an employer himself?
--A. He becomes an employer himself.
Q. Does he usually locate upon the plantation lands along
the rivers?
--A. No, sir; he cannot buy this land, because the planter
would not divide a large plantation into tracts; he would
not sell off a portion of his land without selling the
whole.
Q. In how large tracts are the plantations held? Just
mention the acreage of some of them that you are acquainted
with.
--A. I would say variously from 500 to 2,500 acres in
cultivation.
Q. How valuable are these plantations per acre?
--A. That is a question which cannot be answered definitely
except in this way: where a planter owns the land, and he is
out of debt, the land is not for sale, because he cannot
invest his money in anything that is so profitable; but
where a planter's property is mortgaged, and the mortgagee
wants to foreclose and will foreclose, and there is not in
that country the money which the planter can borrow to
relieve himself of his indebtedness, he will probably sell
his land at a small excess of his debt in order to save
something. You see there is a want of capital in that
country, and if a planter is involved, as many planters are
and have been ever since the war, he must do the best he
can. There are many planters in that country who are nothing
but agents of the factors, from the fact that the interest
and commissions they pay upon the debt amount to more than
the rent for the property, and they hold on to it as a home.
Therefore, a planter in that condition will sell at a
nominal price, whereas a plantation owned and paid for is
not for sale.
By Mr. PUGH:
Q. There is really no established market price?
--A. None at all, owing to the necessity of the one to sell
and the desire of another to buy.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Q. At what rates per acre have you known the title to
change in some instances?
--A. I have known lands to be bought there, including
woodlands and cleared lands, at from $20 to $25 an acre,
which would be, say, $40 or $50 an acre for the cleared
land, and I have known other planters to refuse $80 an acre,
cash.
Q. Do you think that $80 or $100 per acre would be a
reasonable price for these plantation lands?
--A. They sold before the war for $120 an acre.
By Mr. CALL:
Q. You are speaking now of the alluvial lands?
--A. I am speaking of the alluvial lands on the Mississippi
River, cleared, ready for cultivation, with the improvements
existing upon them.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Q. Improved plantations?
--A. Yes, sir.
Q. Upon what price per acre do you think those lands would
pay, one year with another, an interest of 6 per cent?
--A. I will best answer that question by the figures of
rents which I have given. The rent, without any
responsibility attached to the proprietor at all, is from $8
to $10 an acre.
Q. In money?
--A. In money. I will say further that I have been living in
that country since 1869, and I have never yet known a year
when there has not been a sufficient crop made to pay the
rent, without a single exception.
By Mr. CALL:
Q. What is left to the tenant after he pays this $10 an
acre?
--A. That land produces on an average 400 pounds of lint
cotton to the acre, which at 10 cents a pound is $40.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Q. To what extent is Northern capital availing itself of
opportunity to invest in these plantations?
--A. I might say it is limited.
Q. From what fact does that arise?
--A. From the fact that the safety of investments there is
just becoming apparent to capitalists. Capitalists up to
this time have been afraid to go to the South, owing to the
disturbed condition of affairs politically and this very
race-issue question. A man does not want to carry his money
down there and put it into a country that might be involved
in riots and disturbances. Those questions are now just
beginning to settle themselves, and capital is beginning to
find its way.
Q. Do you anticipate in the near or remote future any
further difficulty from the race question?
--A. Not at all, and if we are left to ourselves things will
very soon equalize themselves.
Q. You are left to yourselves now, are you not?
--A. We are now.
Q. All you ask is to continue to be let alone?
--A. Just to be let alone. The South, with her natural
resources and advantages of climate and soil, feels that she
is perfectly able to take care of herself and her affairs,
and all she wants is that the legislation of the country,
both Federal and State, should be that which will mete out
justice to all her citizens, colored as well as white.
Q. Does the South feel as though all she had got to do was
to take care of herself, or does she feel a little
responsibility for the other section of the country?
--A. She feels, more immediately now, responsibility for
that section, for this reason, that the negro population of
the South, compared with the white population of the South,
might be a dangerous element, but the negro population,
compared with the whole white population of the United
States as an integral body, sinks into insignificance.
Therefore, the forces which are at work in the South today
make us strongly Union. They are directly contrary to what
were existing before the war, and there are no people in
this Government today who have the same interest in the
Federal Union that the people of the Southern States have,
and they appreciate it.
Q. You feel that it is to your advantage that the negro
population should be dealt with by the forty or fifty
millions of whites, that the races should be balanced in
that proportion rather than in the proportion that exists
between them and the white population of the South alone?
--A. Yes, sir.
Q. The central idea of the South is a national idea, then?
--A. The central idea of the South is more a national idea
now than it has been in this respect.
Q. I would use the word "leading" rather than "central"
there--the leading idea?
--A. We, of course, claim that we want to manage the
internal affairs of our States just as much as New York, or
New Hampshire, or Massachusetts would want to manage theirs,
but that it is necessary for us to have the guidance and
protection of the Government: we want it just as much as
either of those States.
Q. Have you traveled considerably through the North?
--A. I have.
Q. What portions of the North have you visited within the
last few years?
--A. I have visited Philadelphia, New York, Boston,
Hartford, and I might say a number of other points in the
States of which they are the chief cities.
Q. While we are speaking of this matter of reciprocal
feeling between the sections of country, as you have
mentioned the attitude of the South, I should like to know
from you, from your personal observation and knowledge, what
you find to be that of the North toward the South?
--A. I think it is of the kindliest character. I have never
in my life been treated with more consideration than I have
been by gentlemen in the East who were most opposed to the
South during the war.
Q. I do not refer simply to personal courtesy, but I mean
the expression of feeling as between the sections, the
general tendency and drift of Northern feeling towards the
Southern portions of the country, to the people of the
South?
--A. I think, so far as I have been able to observe, that
the feeling in the East towards the South is a general
anxiety for her prosperity. I would go so far as to speak of
it as anxiety for her prosperity.
Q. You think the war of sections is pretty much over?
--A. I think it is obliterated, and for that reason I go
back to this point, that our prosperity in the South has
begun.
Q. You have described with some minuteness the condition of
things among the planters and those who work upon the
plantations. I should like to ask this question further,
whether any of the negroes along the alluvial bottoms are
obtaining ownership of lands in fee-simple?
--A. In very few instances in the alluvial lands. When they
make enough money to buy a home they generally go to the
hill country, where land can be bought at a much more
reasonable price.
Q. With what amount of accumulation will a negro get up and
go to the hills?
--A. There are negroes right in my section of the country
who have an accumulation clear of all expenses of from a
thousand to $3,500 a year.
Q. Do they remain or do they go and buy homesteads for
themselves?
--A. They probably remain until they accumulate a few
thousand dollars, and then go and buy a home. We encourage
it, from the fact that we want the others behind to be
stimulated to do the same thing. I will say in that
connection that the future of the negro of the South is the
alluvial lands.
Q. These plantations?
--A. Not only these plantations particularly. What I mean by
alluvial lands are the alluvial lands on the coast and the
alluvial lands of the Mississippi Valley, the rich lands
where the negro relies on his own energy and exertion rather
than on his brains. There is an immigration coming into the
older States now.
Q. The older Southern States?
--A. The older Southern States. As they come in the negroes
gradually give way and go to the richer lands. For instance,
one railroad last year brought into the Mississippi Valley
over 10,000 negro immigrants.
Q. From what States?
--A. From the Atlantic and Gulf States.
Q. What became of them?
--A. They were scattered along the alluvial lands of the
Mississippi Valley. As the negroes of the Mississippi Valley
either immigrate from that valley and go in different
directions and buy land, the planters of the Mississippi
Valley send out to the older States and replace them with
labor from those States. A negro in the older States,
probably, to make his support would have to cultivate 15 or
20 acres of land, whereas a negro in the Mississippi Valley
can make his support on 8 or 10 acres of land.
Q. Will this result in the ownership of the alluvial lands
being transferred to the negro?
--A. No, sir; because as he makes money he goes off.
Q. He is a Chinese immigrant?--A. I mean by "goes off" he
does not go out of the State, but he goes to the hills.
Q. And to smaller ownerships?--A. To smaller ownerships.
Q. And the aim of the Southern planter is to accommodate
this tendency of things to smaller rentings?
--A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you think a plantation is more productive where,
under a general supervision by the planter or the owner, it
is let out in small sections to the negroes to cultivate, or
is it better to cultivate the plantation as a whole?
--A. It is better to let it out, as I stated in my written
answers. The cotton crop of this country is being raised to
such an extent by the small white farmers that the large
planter can no longer afford to hire and compete with that
class of labor who only expend their own energy;
consequently the tendency is to make farmers of the negroes.
Q. What chance is there of the planter securing white
labor to carry on these plantations?
--A. There is such a small proportion of white labor in the
South that it would be difficult for him to find them, and
the tide of foreign immigration is just beginning to be
turned in that direction. There has been a prejudice against
white emigrants going to the South, on account of going
among the negroes.
Q. Do you think that is diminishing?
--A. Diminishing yearly.
Q. You mean that immigration from Europe is being employed
on the plantations?
--A. Not exactly upon the large cotton plantations, but the
smaller plantations are now being converted into farms. For
instance, there has been a large immigration of European
emigrants into that section of the country between Little
Rock and Fort Smith.
Q. Do they, upon these farm or small plantations being
converted into farms, work in companionship with the negro
laborer?
--A. No; they generally buy the land and work it themselves;
they may hire a negro and work with him; they are laborers
themselves.
Q. Is there any tendency among the white and colored
laborers of any class to work in companionship, or to
fraternize at all in labor?
--A. I cannot say that there is. A white man would not take
a negro in as a partner to work with him in the field.
Q. And will a white man find any difficulty in hiring
another white man and negro to work together side by side in
the field?
--A. No, sir; I have them myself working side by side.
Q. There is no prejudice of that kind?
--A. None at all.
Q. No white man inquires whether he can work by himself or
is to work in company with a negro? Do they exhibit any
reluctance to work in company with the negro?
--A. The class of white people that work in our country for
wages comes from Ohio, and Missouri, and Indiana, and that
section of country, and I find there is some prejudice among
that class of people sometimes, but still there are
instances--as I say, I have men from Indiana now myself
hired working right in a gang with negroes.
Q. There is no strong tendency in that way, I suppose?
--A. No strong tendency in that way. There are no white
laborers from the South proper; at least the number we can
hire for wages is so small that it is not sufficient to call
it a class.
Q. In the Southern States proper about two thirds of the
population is white, is it not?
--A. I do not recollect. According to the census returns I
think there are about seven millions of negroes. The census
would give the exact statement.
Q. Not far from two thirds of the population, I think, is
white. In the Gulf States proper at least one half the
population must be white. In what way is the white laboring
population of the South employed?
--A. They are employed as small farmers nearly almost
entirely.
Q. Not to as great extent as mechanics and artisans?
--A. I suppose there is a liberal proportion of them to the
population; we have to have our artisans and mechanics; but
as a rule the white population of the South are small
farmers, either owners of the land themselves or tenants.
Q. How as to their material prosperity and thrift and
saving?
--A. It varies very much. For instance, take the State of
Georgia--and I believe it is admitted that Georgia is one of
the most thrifty and prosperous of all the Southern
States--I think the small farmers are generally
self-sustaining; they raise their own supplies.
Q. Do these small white farmers employ negro help to any
extent?
--A. To a certain extent. If a man has more land than his
family can work he will hire a negro laborer. There is no
prejudice against his doing so either on the part of the
farmer hiring him or the negro hired.
Q. He may hire some white and other colored laborers, I
suppose?
--A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do they work together?
--A. Yes, sir.
Q. How in regard to the value of the hill lands you have
spoken of in the State of Arkansas; as compared with the
alluvial, what is the difference in value?
--A. It is very great. There are farms in Arkansas that can
be bought, partially cleared up, and with some improvements
upon them, for from $5 to $20 an acre, less than the rent of
fair lands on the river. There is no finer section of
country in the world--I say that unhesitatingly--for a
foreign immigrant, or the immigrant from the East, or from
anywhere, than is afforded to-day in Arkansas and Texas.
Q. And political disturbances are at an end?
--A. We apprehend nothing at all; there is no reason why we
should.
Q. You were speaking of the necessity of the education of
the laborer of the South, the negro especially. Will you not
describe to us the actual condition of the masses of the
colored people in the matter of education, to what extent it
has progressed, and what facilities and opportunities exist,
and what additional are required?
--A. It varies in different sections. For instance, Georgia,
and Tennessee are probably ahead of any of the Southern
States in point of educating the colored people; they have
more facilities; they have negro primary schools and
colleges where a man is educated. The education that I was
speaking of, more particularly for the negro, is a plain
English education, sufficient to enable him to read and
write.
Q. What we call up North a common school education?
--A. A common school education. I will illustrate that.
Suppose a negro comes to me to make a contract that I have
written for him, and he cannot read or write. I offer that
contract to him, and I read it to him. He touches a pen and
signs his mark to it; there is no obligation attached at
all. He says at once, "That man is an educated man; he has
the advantage of me; he shows me that contract; I do not
know what is in it; I cannot even read it." Therefore a
contract made with a negro in that way is almost a nullity;
but if he could read that contract himself and sign his own
name to it, it would be a very different thing. I never
allow a negro to sign a written contract with me before he
has taken it home with him and had some friend to read it
over and consult with him about it, because I want some
obligation attached to my contracts.
Q. It is necessary for you as well as the negro?
--A. Necessary for my protection as well as his.
Q. How many of the negroes on the plantations can
comprehend a written contract by reading it, because a man
may be somewhat educated and not be able to decipher a
contract?
--A. I cannot give you an exact proportion, for it varies to
a great extent. I can only say that that number is
increasing rapidly.
Q. From what circumstances comes this increase?
--A. From their desire to gain knowledge.
Q. Do you find that desire strong among the colored people?
--A. Very strong indeed; and there are two ideas which a
negro possesses that give me great hopes for his future. If
I did not believe the negro was capable of sufficient
development to make him a responsible small farmer, I should
not want to remain in the business that I am any longer,
because I believe that the development of my business is
necessarily based upon the development of the negro and the
cultivation of my lands. The negro possesses two remarkable
qualifications: one is that he is imitative, and the other
is that he has got pride; he wants to dress well; he wants
to do as well as anybody else does when you get him aroused,
and with these two qualifications I have very great hopes
for him in the future.