The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1878-01-24

/ but sometimes buys on credit. Why
should the farmer always receive mon
ey for his produce any more than the
merchant for his goods? Marketing
consists in the exchange of one article
for another as well as in selling an ar
ticle for cash. But the farmer may
want cash and not trade for his prod
uce. Very well: He has the right to
get it if he can. But in these times OF
financial embar easements, distress,
| failures, and frequent bankruptcies
throughout the civilized world, he may
not always be able to get it. And
then it is his right to do the next best
he can. Sometimes it is better to sell
for trade at the price he can get than
to sell for money at the price he can
get. But sometimes the farmer, like
other business men, must raise money,
and then he must do it the best heean'
even by selling produce at cash price
in time Of low market.
EAST BRISTOL seems to be dissatis-
fed not only with the markets OF Ke-
nosha but also with any one speaking
of cash payments for produce In the
Kenosha market Wequote from East
BristoIs communication Of this week
the following: "Both the editors Of the
Union and the TELEGRAPH have GER
tainly been misinformed by the mer-
chants of Kenosha if they assert that
they leave it to the option Of the far
liner whether he takes money or trade.
Up to the present writing the editor
of the TELEGRAPH has not written a
word on the subject. Then how does
East Bristol know that he has been
misinformed by the merchants OF Ke-
nosha if they assert that they leave it
| to the option Of the farmer whether
he takes money or trade? Perhaps
East Bristol may have mistaken the
meaning Of an article in the TELE-
GRAPH last week under the caption,
KENosHA AS A PRODUCE MARKET
saying:
Inasmuch as several farmers and
produce raisers have seen fit to make
complaint in the local papers, Of the
poor prices and limited demand Of osr
Kenosha market, the TELEGRAPH has
been to special pains to make a brief
compilation Of the amount paid out by
. our merchants and buyers during the
past year, for farm and dairy products.
For the purpose of ascertaining with
certainty the reporter visited all the
prominent firms on Main ST., and find
that during the year 1877, Here fol
lows the names Of buyers and the
amounts paid by them respectively fol
produce. This article was written by
the reporter and not by the editor, an6
the editor is no more responsible for il
than he is for the articles, written by
East Bristol. In one sense he is re-
sponsible for both, and in another, for
neither.
In the sense Of being responsible for
both we inquire. Which would be the
| most likely to be informed in relation
to Kenosha as a produce market, the
Kenosha reporter er the East Bristo
correspondent? The reporter resides
in Kenosha and has made special in
vestigation in relation to 1t: The cor
respondent resides in Bristol and has
made no special investigation in rela
ton to it.
AS to the editor Of the TELEGRAPH
or the reporter being misinformed by
| the merchants Of Kenosha if they as
sert they leave it to the option of the
farmer whether he takes money OF
trade we would say there is no such
statement or anything like it in the
reporters article. East Bristol sup.
poses a case for the editor and then
goes on to demolish it. East Bristol
mistakes the writer of the article in
| the TELEGRAPH and then mistakes
what is said in the article. And yet
probably never thinks that it is posi-
BILE for East Bristol to be misinformed
relative to the produce market OF
Kenosha rather than the editor OF the
| TELEGRAPH. And, as East Bristol
correspondent is not as well located
for getting the facts in relation to the
Kenosha produce market, as the Keno.