The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1872-11-27
The Abbeville and Anderson Markets

But for its length, ana our hhltct
space this week, we would publish il
our columns an editorial of the An
dsrson Iatr'ligsncer in reply to ours OF
the above subject. We are pleased tt
see that our friend at least has no
lost his temper. We can assure hin
too that our equanimity has not bee'
in the least disturbed, and that even
such had been the case, we coul'
scarcely have avoided following tn
example of good temper. and goot
taste which our friend has so fully
manifested in his reply. If a want o
temper be evidence of the weakness
of ones cause, he at least is not Oh
noxious to such a charge. .s
But our, friend expresses surprise
that the article Of the Medium awak
ened no response from US until il
appeared in the columns of the Intel
lqencer, and seems TO intimate that
we might have some covert reason toi
selecting the latter paper rather than
the former as an antagonist ln the
controversy. The explanation is so
simple and ineligible that we need
notgo very far to find it. Thatartlcle
emanated from an unknown writer,
and appeared in corner of the paper,
withont; note or comment from the
editors, and hence, perhaps would not
have elicited remark from us, If the
Intelfqencer had not republished it,
and by reimbursement given it cur
reney and importance which did not
at first belong to it. AS the produc-
ton of q nameless correspondent, we
were disposed to ignore it; but, as
the expressed, and carefully weighed
opinion of an enlightened and infuen-
tial journal, it demanded an answer,
if answer could be made.
This statement in itself would seem
to be sufficient reply to the answer
!, of the Intsliigencer to our charge that
editorial and communication did equal
Injustice to the merchants Of Abbe-
ville. The Inteiiigencer contends that
its editorialsmade no charge, direct or
indirect, against the Abbeville mer-
chants. But athe communication
charged that itswas "a shame and
scandal" that Abbeville farmers had
to sell their produce. and buy their
groceries in Anderson, and the In'eiL-
oencer would seem TO justify the charge
by. claiming for Anderson that it is
"the best cotton market in the up
country, and furnishesevery desirable
article at the lowest prices" Admit
that the charge is not made directly,
is it not implied in re-publishing such
an. article with such comments? If a
town forty miles further from the
seaboard, and with no greater natural
or artificial resources can. pay one
half cent more for cotton, and sell
goods cheaper than the other, is not
the latter justly amenable to the
charge of o want of enterprise and
business tact2 The Iateiligencer would
Justify the charge by vouching fol
the facts upon which it is based.
But next, as to the proof Of the
facts themselves the high price Of
cotton and the cheapness of goods in
the Anderson market-the Intelltgen
Ger relies very much on the fact that
Anderson does attract the Abbeville
farmer, and thinks it very irrational
to explain this on the ground OF 8
lack of information on his part, OF
upon any other-supposition than that
he promotes his interests by selling
and buying in the Anderson market
Intelligent farmers in the upper part
of our District have suggested to us
other reasons than the superiority OF
the Anderson market that it has sue
ceeded in attracting number OF
Abbeville farmers from that section
In the first place, many of the Ander.
son firms have business connections
with Abbeville, and have made no
small effort to secure its trade, by
giving employment to the elite of its
Young men, Again, Anderson is
equally near the Abbeville line, and
more accessible than Abbeville, be-
cause the roads are better. The deep
mud of seme of the Abbeville roads
would be sufficient 10 turn the scale
against her, where other considera-
tions are equally balanced.
Admitting that Anderson nominally
pays more for cotton than Abbeville,
We gave the experience Of a single
farmer, in explanation, without vouch-
ing for its general application. The
Intslhgcneer regards that experience as
very inconclusive, unless the accuracy
Of the AbbeviIle and Anderson scales
had been compared and tested. We
! merely cited the fact for what it was
worth, and suggested how an increase
of price might be more than counter
balanced by o loss of weight. We
certainly did not intend to impugn
the integrity or skill of the sworn
weisher, NJ II FAINT. A defect in the
scales would furnish simple expla
nation To remove all ground of
complaint in IAbbeville, it has been
deemed proper to discard the common
platform scales, and procure the i'm
proved New York beam scales. Per-
haps Anderson would do well tofollow
her: example. In what we said in
this connection as not .creditable TO-
the Anderson buyer, we cheerfally
make the amende-our remark was
unguarded, and founded on misap-
Asat6 the comparative cheapness Of
goods IN the two markets, we would
advert to the facts set forth in our
article, and we have the authority Of
The Iateltigeacer itself for holding that