hope before many years to stop this drain on the wealth of the cotton farmer.

Another waste in former days was in marketing the crop, but here there has been in recent years a marvelous gain in directness and economy. Formerly the farmer sold to his merchant at the county seat; the merchant at the county seat sold to the commission merchant at the State capital; the commission merchant sold to the dealer at the seaport; the seaport dealer sold to the New York exporter; the New York exporter sold to Liverpool, and Liverpool sold to Manchester. Now all this is changed-how greatly changed will be seen from the report of a cotton exporting house which handles more than 300,000 bales each season. "The cotton is now bought on the plantations or at the railway stations throughout the whole cotton belt by the representatives of large exporting houses and by the mills," said the manager of this exporting house to us the other day. "Our firm employs more than one hundred buyers for this purpose, and the cotton is shipped daily to the port where it is expeditiously sampled, classified, weighed, compressed and loaded upon ships for foreign ports with almost incredible swiftness. We have had a train loaded with cotton fifty miles from port at 7 a. m., and at 7 p. m. of the same day it has been stored on board a foreign ship and bills of exchange drawn and negotiated!"

In view of these facts, we may regard this leak in the export trade as belonging to the past rather than to the present.

Lastly, I come to what is perhaps the greatest leak of allnot to the cotton farmer solely, but to the Cotton Belt. We are still shipping 60 per cent of our cotton to Europe-almost as uneconomic, as has been said, as it would be to ship our iron ore instead of turning it into the finished product here.

And in view of the leaks we are to stop and the great resultant savings that are to enrich the South, and in view of the prospective remedying of this last great leak, we cannot better conclude this chapter than by quoting an extract from an address by Mr. Richard H. Edmonds, of the Manufacturer's Record, delivered in New York city a few months ago—not a mere day dream, a flight of fancy, but a prediction of what

actually bids fair to come to pass within the lifetime of most of those who read this article:

"It is not to be expected that the South ever will manufacture its entire cotton production, for, when it has reached the point where it consumes in its own mills the 10,500,000 bales which now neasure its average crop, the world will be demanding of it-and it will meet the world's demandsprobably 20,000,000 bales. But the utilization in its own mills of 10,000,000 bales would mean the employment of 1,000,000 operatives, the investment in mills and textile machinery of not less than $2,000,000,000 and the annual output would be worth $200,000,000.

"Then, indeed, would the South, without monopolizing the world's cotton manufacturing interests, be the dominant factor, the center of the world's cotton mill business, producing 20,000,000 bales and consuming at home in its own mills, 10,000,000 bales.

"Both will come about in due time. The South sees before it this prize, rich beyond words to describe, creating wealth beyond anything which this section or any other section has known, and this is the prize-a prize great enough to enrich an empire-for which it has entered the race. That it will win admits of no question."

Reminiscences of Ben Hill

BY JOHN C. REED, ESQ.,

Author of "The Brothers' War"

In 1856 I was teaching school with my father at Woodstock, a little place in Oglethorpe county, Georgia. A. H. Stephens had entered Congress in 1843, and Toombs in 1845. I had lived in Stephens's district, and on the edge of Toombs's. At the date mentioned Toombs had been three years in the Senate. The prominence-nay, I might almost say, the supremacy-of these two men in politics was the boast of nearly all of the people of that part of Georgia. The year before-that is, 1855-was the first one in which I had an opportunity to hear real stump discussion. Toombs and Stephens had been Whigs. The times were bringing them as advocates of Southern rights into the Democratic party. It was but wise that they should go slowly for fear that thousands of their old Whig followers could not be changed. Nothing was more adroit than the conduct of Stephens in his famous campaign of 1855 against the Know Nothings. Looking back over my life I regard his accomplishment at this time as one of the greatest events in politics within my knowledge. I am sure that Stephens himself never excelled in any after speech, except perhaps the one which he made against secession before the Georgia Legislature, the speeches that he made almost every day in this antiKnow Nothing campaign. Reading the papers diligently, and keeping up with public happenings as I did, I had heard of Ben Hill's strong race for Congress in 1855, when he came so near beating Warner. But I had not yet taken his full

measure.

The famous stump debate between him and Stephens took place at Lexington in October, 1856. As the place was only thirteen miles distant from Woodstock, many of my neighbors and acquaintances attended. I was astounded to hear them report on their return that "The Little Hero," as Stephens was called, had been completely discomfited by the

young Ben Hill. Most of them agreed that while Stephens maintained himself in the argument, his personal thrusts and severe criticism of his adversary and the party of the latter, were most befittingly chastised. Especially did all admit that Stephens's ridicule had been turned decisively against him. The latter had told his old story of the husband who ran into the loft when the bear entered, how Nancy killed the bear, and how the husband came down and triumphed over the fallen monster, exclaiming, "Nancy, weren't we brave!" The narrators could not restrain their laughter as they told how Hill, in his reply, applied to Stephens the name "Nancy," which he had really given himself by the tale. They reported also how severe was Hill's denunciation of the accusations which "Nancy" had often made of his old Whig supporters, because of their conscientious difference from "her" and adherence to the principles of the American party-these men who had been the best of friends, and who had shown unlimited trust for years in "Nancy" as their champion. One of my informants said that the second speech of Hill was but a pouring of melted lead on Stephens for three-quarters of an hour. At its close Stephens had five minutes, and Ben concluded in five minutes. These auditors all agreed that Stephens's manner in this five minutes confessed that he felt he had been disastrously worsted. The only response of genuine sympathy which he drew from the crowd during this last speech was his reply to Hill's taunt that he had been ungrateful to the men that had made him. "Men did not make me," he said, "God Almighty alone made me." But Hill, in his last five minutes, wiped this out by saying, "If God did make you, he did not pronounce you good."

I went to Washington, Wilkes county, which was eighteen miles distant, the next day to hear the debate between this new wonder and Toombs. Toombs opened with an hour and a half, then Ben Hill had an hour and a half, then Toombs a half hour, and Ben concluded in half an hour. Toombs evidently understood Hill far better than Stephens did, and an allusion which he made as he began showed he had had accurate report of the discussion at Lexington. In his

hour and a half he was very powerful and convincing; and as he progressed he was more and more aggressive. I had heard him make a specially fine speech at Union Point the year before, when, just before the election, he debated with W. C. Dawson. He was, if anything, superior today. He put Hill on the defensive, and set him to explaining and explaining. There was an occasional flash, or witticism, exciting applause or laughter, but on the whole the performance in his first speech was not up to Hill's level. At its conclusion he sharply commented upon the domineering manner of his adversary. He said at the last something like this: "It will be useless for Mr. Toombs to try to intimidate me. God has made me insensible to fear." Toombs, beginning at once, said: "I shall find out before I sit down if he has made you insensible to shame." In his rapid and epigrammatic style he commented upon Hill's failure to answer material points, his mistakes in statement, and his shortcomings in grasping the real questions. It was really such a speech as only Toombs, when aroused, could make. Hill's reply was in very fine spirit. It was guying, rather than argumentative. He made game of Toombs's over-positiveness, and over-confidence, specially stressing his intolerance. As I afterwards observed in Hill, he always shrank from an adversary concluding upon him. As he now had the last word, he was without apprehension of any further correction, such as that he had received in Toombs's half hour, and he spoke with self-reliance and perfect ease. Some of his fun was very effective. Toombs had told of something which occurred while he was a captain in the Creek war. Ben's designation of him as "Cap'n Toombs" was very much relished by all of us. Something he said extorted an interrupting question from Toombs, to which Hill replied, "No, sirree, Bob." This excited much laughter. Toombs and Stephens were usually called, the former "Bob," the latter "Alick."

The common opinion of the Democrats was that Hill flayed Stephens at Lexington, but even the Americans who heard the Washington discussion went no further than to claim that Hill had held his own. To do this was a great feat.