The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1875-09-02


of reminding him of it. After Col.
Cochran had repeatedly announced upon
the streets that he would not run again
for Intendant, Mr.. McGee went to the
various merchants of the town and got
them to recommend him for the position
of Town Weigher, after which he carried
the paper to Col. Cochran, to ask his
signature also. When the petition was
presented to him, he replied in emphatic
language, that he was sorry to see it. Tor
he wanted Mr.. Kecse to have the posi-
ton, and that petition would render it
necessary for him to run again for 1nten-
daut. This conversation can be substan-
tiated by Mr.. McGee's affidavit, if neccs-
sary. So the public can judge whether
Col. Cochran or we state this correctly.
All we know about kindred ties inauen-
cling persons vote is from observation,
as we have never voted for relative for
any office; hence this "fing" of the
Colonel's is also uncalled for. He is also
wrong in stating that the 1ntendant has
no vote for officers elected by the Coun-
Gil, except in case of a tie. If he can
show any law forbidding his voting, he
will to that extent instruct us, but the
very tact that there was tie on the elec-
ton of weigher, shows that the opposi-
ton to Mr.. Reese was equal to the sup
port he had, and then his brother-in-law's
vote elected him over the petition of the
merchants, and where the Council was
equally divided for and against him.
Now, as to Mr.. Reese personally we have
nothing to say, except that he has allow
ed his name to be used in an improper
manner, and the action of our merchants
shows that Col. Cochran has done just
what we charged-attempted to force him
on them for weigher. His third reason
for supporting Mr.. Reese is not otsustained
by the facts, for it was generally under
stood that any man who took the posi-
ton would do so at FIVE cents per bale
for the cotton weighed.
Mr.. McGee's petition did not state the
amount at which he would weigh the
cotton, but he was candidate for the
position at whatever price might be fixed
for the work, and before the election by
the Council, on the same day, the mer-
chants had elected Mr.. MCGEE, and fixed
the price of weighing cotton at five cents
per bale, to be paid by the buyer. Col.
Cochran is also mistaken in saying that
we asserted that the first weigher was
elected to protect the seller from great
irregularities in aceights, for we did not
say how, nor by whom, these Irregularities
of weights occurred. 1t might have been
by false weights or by selling wet cotton,
and the time at which these irregularities
occurred was before the appointment of
the weigher by the merchandising be-
fore the Council ever had any connection
with it-and the weigher was appointed
to settle all questions as to weights and
loss by water. Now, we did not say that
the unprincipled men were either mer-
chants or farmers-they may have been
both, for we are not enough of dema-
gogue to claim that man is either hon
est or dishonest because he follows any
particular branch of respectable industry,
and Col. Cochran's intimation that the
buyers are the only ones who practice
fraud, is mere piece of disreputable
demagogucism, intended to gain favor
among such farmers as are simple enough
to be won over by such sycophancy.
According to his views Of the honesty
of farmers, there is no use for public
weigher, for he says they "will not, in
his opinion, endeavor to palm off cotton
on the merchants at more than its fair
and just weights" Hence, his Council
had better just enact that the merchant
shall take the farmers statement for the
weight of his cotton. 1t is extremely
improbable that our merchants are such
dishonest crowd as Col. Cochran plainly
intimatcs, and we do not think this i'm
piled slander will meet with single
echo from the farmers of our County, for
we think both farmers and merchants
have as high regard for each others
integrity as is to be found among the
same classes anywhere, and the only
checks that are necessary are those usu-
ally adopted for the security and protec-
ton of trade. Col. Cochran was mcr-
chant here for several years, but we arc
not uncharitable enough to suppose that
he was as unfair in his dealings as he
would have our people believe the other
merchants are.
Next, he says, $50 far as / can see, the
taking off of wet has been oppressive to
the seller, and is injurious to the mer-
chant" &c. This, of course, is impossi-
BILE, for it is matter of loss and profit.
If the farmer loses the merchant gains,
and rice versa. So this statement is un-
doubtedly incorrect. But he errs greatly
in supposing the leaving of the question