The patron of husbandry. (Columbus, Miss.) 1875-1883, 1881-06-04

were plenty of fresh lands, the cH-
mate was good, and the opening to
manufactures was good; these are
the reasons, and then money could
he made selling meat, mules, goods,
tools. etc, to planters.
q. Did Won ever know man more dam
aged in purse by big than small crop OF
cotton1
Yes; there is not a man in the
South who raised bale last wear
but was hurt by the big crop. The
most money | ever lost was W hen
had the biggest crop. This year my
neighbor paid $I.25 per 100 to pick;
cotton, shipped it in the seed, and
did not get enough to pay expenses
10. Did he ever know n cotton raiser who
owned his own land staid at ho:ne, alter
ded strictly TO his own business, did the
best he could, kept away from drinking
shops. did not buy or sell futures, but that
increased in riches?
Yes; | have neighbor who own
ed 500 acres of cleared land that is as
good as the best. is a good planter,
works hard, makes good crops, and
after eight years of hard work has
lost his plantation-all sunk trying
to get rich making cotton.
II. Did he ever know a man who was
raised in town. took it into his head that
the country people knew nothing about
A. ], HOY har ot
or rented lands, went into farming, but in
four years was back IN town, having lost
all he had or could borrow?
Il. What is it about cotton raising that
gives the producer a higher credit with
moneyed men than anything else?
In answer to No. II, I say, no;
and that I amt much acquainted
with city folks and ain'tnow making
any new acquaintance in that line.
You say you could ask me many
more questions. Well, brother, |
guess that's so. It's said child can
ask questions that the wisest can't
answer. So, dear brother, with your
permission, | will ask you a few
questions. Why did you ask me
the II questions? Not one of them
had the least bearing on my letter.
| was simply trying to tell why the
South was planting so much cotton.
For wears almost every paper in the
South has told them that ruin was
staring them in the face if they con
tinued the all-cotton policy; the
North, who was greatly benefited
by their folly, told them the same;
the cotton factor who was getting
rich from this folly, told them the
same; but still on they went, and l
wanted to know why they did it.
In your last question you ask,
"What is it about the cotton raiser
that gives him higher credit with
noneyed men than anything else?"
Well, | never knew that was SO. |
have always paid III to 20 per cent
for all the money | ever borrowed,
and | know of no one who gets il
for less. No cotton planter can Dor
row money from any capitalist al
any price except a commission mer-
chant, while the grain grower of the
North can borrow up TO the value of
his farm. If YOU, Bro. Gilmer, can
borrow $4,000 on a mortgage on
1000 acres OF as good cotton lands
as ever a crow few over, | will give
YOU nice calico shirt with imitation
diamond studs in it. The truth is,
cotton planters have no credit with
capitalists. Cotton factors can now
get money at 6 per cent per annum;
a planter pays 20 per cent.
Now, Bro. Gilmer, are YOU one Of
them city fellows what wears good
store clothes and stands around on
the street to catch poor country
chap and sell him cheap bill Of
goods? or are you a cotton planter:
and if the latter, how long have you
been one? Look the cotton question
square in the face, and see if | amt
right,
Now, another question. Do you
know of any good laboring white
man that can pay his board and
washing and then make SO per
month cultivating cotton? If SO,
give me the figures. l want to learn.
/ can't do it; nor you, either.
Fraternally, BARNEY LILLARD