The patron of husbandry. (Columbus, Miss.) 1875-1883, 1880-07-03
Grange Principles.

but that we do not need them. Their
surplus and exactions diminish our
profits.
Here we are met with opposi-
ton. and all sorts of slanderous mis-
representation. At first some man.
ufacturers combined against US, and
refused to sell to us at all, only
through their own agents, requiring
us to pay their agents exorbitant
wages or profits.
Our proposition was to select our
own agents to buy of the manufac-
turers for us. We had to pay the
agent any way, and we thought it
but fair and right that we should
have the selection, and the right to
make our own bargain as to the
wages he received. The combina-
! tons did not work well. There
were none others to sell to but
farmers, and they became SO fool
ishly stubborn that they would buy
only in their own way, that was
through agents of their own seIec-
ton. Some of them patched up the
old plows, and others passed resolu-
tons that they would make wooden
plows, rather than submit to the
manufacturers terms. These man.
ufdcturers had bound themselves to
each other in a heavy penalty
| SIS ooo-for each infraction of their
rule, which was not to sell a pillow
for less than their agents retail
price. But the agents could not
force the farmers to buy, and no.
body else wanted the goods. They
were accommodating in the factories.
Something had to be done. Some
body had to yield. The farmers
would not. The manufacturers
could not without forfeiting $1,000
to their fraternity for each plow
sold on such terms as the farmers
were willing to buy. A dead lock
for while. But it could not last.
There was too much money invest
ed in these manufactures to stand
idle. Obligations for raw material
had to be met. The workmen en-
ployed had to be paid. No plows-
or but few, were being sold. If
the combination was ever called to-
gether in council we never heard
of it. But there was one thing
certain, the self-imposed penalties
were all forfeited. Whether any of
them was ever collected or not, we
have no means of ascertaining, but
the strong probability is that there
were not enough of those who did
not forfeit to enforce collection from
those who did. First victory for
the Grange. f ua
Since that time these manufac
turers have been very holly in com
petion with each other for the
Grange trade, through our agents.
Our relations now are very friendly
and harmonious.
In the early history Of the Grange,
an old, wealthy and very prominent
mercantile firm in ST. Louis, that
had been for years doing a heavy
and lucrative business, mostly with
the people of the South, received
an order for goods, accompanied by
the cash, from Grange in the
South. The order and the cash
were returned to the Grange, with
the information that they did not
sell goods in that way; that they
had their regular customers In the
South (retail stores and that the
Grange could buy from them. The
facts in the case were communicated
to the Master of the Missouri State
Grange, and he was appealed to for
information of any merchant in ST.
Louis that would sell goods to the
Grange for cash. The State Master
reported this case in the public
prints, giving the name of the finn
and adding some comments of his
own, not very complimentary to the
tirm. This exasperated this aristo-
cratic firm somewhat, and they then
issued a circular and addressed it to
their customers in the South (retail
merchants. In this circular they
admitted that the charges made by
the State Master were true. and as
sumed to themselves great credit for
their heightened, business integrity
that is, that they were too honor
able to sell directly to the Grange
on cash orders,and thus deprive the
retail merchants of the South of
their profits. BY some accident
copy of this circular fell into the
hands of the State Master, and that,
too, found its way into the public
papers. We do not know, and
never took upon ourselves the trou-
bic to enquire, as to the subsequent
welfare of these retail merchants of