The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1881-08-11
Tie Repeal OF the Lien Law.
=, .o.ont ;o;nt moetiuo of tha {


Al the recent joint meeting of the State
4 Agricultural and Mechanical Society and
the State Grange, at Grcenville, a num-
her M of essays on different subjects were
nrcscnted and among them the follow
i Inc in favor of the repeal of the agricul-
,n1al lien law was read by Col. A. P.
1 Eutlcr the Commissioner Of Agricul-
~ Uorthy Master, Jir. President, Ladies
and Gentlemen Occupying the position
I do in the Department of Agriculture,
feel that it is duty | owe to myself
and the agriculturists of South Carolina,
70 give publicity to whatcver | may re-
rard detrimental to the material pros
nerlty of our people, and haying given
some attention recently to the collection
NJ such statistical information rs deem
Of much importance, | will briefly refer
! 10 some facts in reference to the lien law.
hlec only been able to get the ncccs.
sary returns from eighteen counties, but
they probably fairly represent the whole
Stale. and my estimates are based upon
these returns. In 1879, 27 40 liens were
recorded in eighteen counties, averaging
:S6. .S} each, and amounting to So, ,267, lG7.
If the other fifteen counties had the same
number each, and averaging the same,
the whole amount Of liens for 1879 was
,372,753, and the whole number of liens
i035S. The number of bales of cotton
produced the same year was 5l6,40O, and
il sold at $50 per bale yielded $25, ,S24,-
500. This would show that it required
about l7.70 Of the gross amount the
crop sold for to pay the liens. Now the
profit to the merchant cannot be less
than 80 per cent. it has been estimated
at 81 per cent, or 81 ,457 ,58S.
The number Of liens given in 1880 was
675lS, averaging 500, and aggregating
1889, ,4G2. If the crop was the same as IS
in 1879. aud sold for the same, it required
about % per cent. to cancel the liens,
and the profit to the factors was probably
over $2, 100000. 1t must be remembered
that the liens are given TO cover ad-
vances, and represent from quarter to a
half Of the Indebtedness on the crop.
The planter then has to pay commissions
on sales, storage, insurance, interest on
advances, and incidental expenses. so
that the surplus, after canceling all these
claims, is very small, and he is forced to
resort to the lien system to run his crop
another year.
Now, is the lien law responsible for
his misfortune? Is the law Il blessing or
! curse? What do these figures prove :?
First, that the larger number OF liens are
given by small tenants, the average
amounts being, as have been stated, $50
and 800. Does this not enable the
laborer, who has nothing but his muscle
to make the same terms as the farmer
who owns The land ? After he has made
sIch arrangements with merchant, does
he not become worthless as laborer :?
Does he benefit himself nr his landlord
by the crop he makes? by his careless
tillage he derieciates the land every year,
realizes nothing for his labor aud pays
very little rent. Would he not be better
of if he received wages? and would not
the owner of the land be able to give him
fair compensation for his services if he
was Demployed by one who could direct
and utilize his labor intelligently, and
apply ii where it is now misdirected
through ignorance and lack of means {?
II the lien law was repealed could the
planter control the labor, and if he could,
would he be able to get such advances as
he needs without the lien law?
It occurs to re that IL farmer who owns
land, stock and farm implements, could
get credit without this law. The figures
mentioned show that larger number of
liens are given each year, proving the
increasing number Of tenants and de-
ccreasing the number Of wage hands.
Experience has taught most Of us that
inns Class OF tenants are not desirable.
Inc terms upon which advances are
granted under the lien law are such as no
business will justify, anI we cannot pros
per until we make some change in this
respect
II the money obtained last year under
the lien law could have been borrowed
ut 5 per cent, the difference in favor of
Inc farmer would have been over 50, ,O00,-
ooo But it is useless 10 speak Of this
unless we can offer remedy; but agita
!lon OF the subject will do no harm, and
III the second there is possibility of this
oelng Gone; Money is abundant and can
oc had III the Northern States at from /
10 0 per cent. per annum. Bonds and
STOCKS that bear the latter rate sell readi-
ior 70 TO Do per cent. above their par
Va'ae. Keal estate is the best security.
ana certainly should easily command
money. We have the land; immigra-
lio1 and capital are seeking our State,
anu they Will soon cause lands to appre-
clale In value. Under these circum.
stances we should have no trouble in
procuring what advances we need by
mortgage upon realty. l have recently
seen IL stated that n gentleman in New
i ork mad secured 100000 for loans to
farmers ON real estate in Georgia. and
'uat Ia short while any amount needed
could be procured
US Urged that the homestead law in
OUT state will act as u barrier to loans of
LIS character here, but thousands of our
farmers can furnish ample security above
and beyond all exemptions.
am opposed to any measure that will
,f MofS a hardship TO the small farmer and
She laooring man, for believe that small
, ,arms and thorough cultivation will vet
molX K out the agricultural redemption of
oul ,;u State. The laborer is certainly en-
uHed TO our protection, and no law
b;ou'u h;o oe enacted that would opprcss
nun. honor man who by his own
oAc'.iohs conqucrs the advcrsities of life
'a. ''nd rcJoice in his prosperity. | would
uol M laVor any measure that would retard
i;. Iae mercantile business, for we owe no
H sie.,e 10 the cHterpTisiny merchants of
south Carolina.
pal VIII a repeal Of the lien law detri-
,.lent any of the classes referred to? The
.na ,,al, who owns no land could become n
tenant as easily as now, the only differ.
eincee being that he would look look TO the
mn.at ,",'u owner for advances instead of the
fv,vnhht' fav"rait' lie would secure just as
tha thJiao,e Ia terms from the proprietor OF
for tho ana whatever profits he earned