The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1882-11-16
THE RAILROAD CONTROVERSY.

Col. r. L. Mclaughlin, the President
Of the Columbia & Grecnville Railroad,
in recent interview with the Columbia
correspondent Of the Ncws and foWier,
replied to the articles Of the Charleston
Cotton Exchange relating Ia The advance
in freghs and the determinations in
freight charges, aud on last Saturday the
Cotton Exchange replied to Col. Mc.
Caughrin. We would like 10 publish
the whole of both articles but have no,
the space at thi, time TO do 80. In the
reply Of the Cotton Exchange wc find
that a part OF their article i'll connection
with Col. McCauyhrin'a article connects
the ISTELLIGENcEg with the c"nlro'
vcray. The Cotton Exchange, taking up
Col. McCauglrina positions one at
tilue, says:
J. Col. McCanglIrin criticis", the state
mIent of the Cotton Exchange that the
increase in frriShts this year will cost the
State 81 100 900 as absurd.
He says "thc increase in the frciEhis
referred to is The increase caused iy the
recent freight rates on cotton"
Tho only dbsuhHy in the matter is his
own forced construction of the statement
in limiting it to the increased charges on
cotton only. The whole sentence in the
circular Of the Cotton Exchange from
which lie quotes is as follows:
The freight schedules adopted this fall
by the Richmond and Danviic tOmpa-
ny. not oEly on cotton going away from
our producers, but ON every article
brought back into our State for home
consumption, bnvG been extremely high
and burdensO.iIG on ali our people, from
1,ff n jln ff,iY, 1,ty
been calculated that tho increase In
freights this year will cost tho people Of
South Carolina more than 81, l,5)0,0OO
which Is Just so much clear loss to tho
State.
Any candid reader, unbiased by Rich
mond and Danville affiliations, would
understand this to mean the entire in
crease on all ircghtS either coming into
or going out from the State and not on
cotton only. This would swell the
amount ns the increase in rates of freight
on MI imports was fully rs great ns ON
cotton or other exports. But il suited the
Richmond nnd Dnnyille plan OF atteupt-
ing to reawukcn tho feeling of tho up
country" against Charleston, to ignore
their injurious Determinations and exnc-
tions :ipon every article Of consumption
imported by the planter into the interior,
aud To ridicnle our complaint as one
simply of Il few Charleston merchants
who were excited over tho loss or their
The figures given were not those Of tho
Cotton Exchange but were quoted from
nn able editorial In the Anderson INTEL
LluENCEK, published October II, 1852
We have no reason to doubt their cor
rectness.
But the question hero is not whethci
this calculation is exactly correct or not
The real question is. Why have these
railroads raised their rates ut all? Col
McCnughrin proposes to answer thi'
I,t,t I, IL Inn,
satisfy the people Of tho State from whose
hard earned savings this large amount Is
being taken to swell the income OF u fGw
gentlemen who 1.-Two and spend their mon
cy beyond the limits of our State.
The true reply Is found in tho words u
II prominent official Of the Richmond ant
Dnnviilo Company, where he is reported
To have remarked: "The country j,
prosperous and tho people can stand tn,
Increase" or words to that effect Tim
il. I'VE will squeeze evory dollar out q
the people OF South Carolina wo can
whether it Is right or not"
II. Col. Mclaughlin claims that til,
figures given by tho Cotton Exchange
comparing tho rates OF freight from st
Louis to Greenwood, and Also thoso L
Anderson, were wrong.
Our figures here were quoted ngaii
from the same editorial of tho Anderson
INrELLIaENcER. We do not presume, IL
Col Mclaughlin evidently docs, tt
charge tho able and well-iniormed e,iito
of that paper with having published or
rOneOus statements.
Tho merchants of Abbeville ovidentl,
hold tho same views. III their letter t
Hon. NJ. l.. Bonham, published In tn,
Scrs and Courier, they say:
"We would also bring 10 your attentio,
the following fact The rate 0f fTaigli
on u uarrei III flour from nashville
Tenn, to Greenwood, s. c., via Augusta
is65 cents. Tho Columbia and Greenvll,
Road charges 40 cents on u barrel OF fiou
from Greenwood to this place. In othe
words, u barrel Of flour Is transported
distance OF moro than five hundred miles
at cost of 65 cents. while more than one
half Of this amount IL charged by the
Columbia and Greenville Road for car
rying barrel Of flour II distance not OK
ceeding twenty miles. We bolieve 1t Is
only nect ssary 10 make complaint of these
grievances II! order to enlist your efforts
in our behalf"
It may be, aa Col. Mclaughlin asserts
that the Greenvillo and Columbia Rail
road does maintain the Same rate to all
stations along itn line, aud also on tho
Spartanburg and Union branches, as II
gives to Greenwood, but the merchants
who are affected by these rates do not
seem to consider themselves "erceetlingly
forfundfe' on that account.
Perhaps 1t Is the Augusta and Knox
vile Railroad that alone confers upon
the Greenwood merchants the blessings
and Columbia Railroad, even under Col.
McCaughrin's kind and fostering care for
his constituents, does not afford. II does
seem unfortunate that the people along
his line do not appreciate his efforts in
this respect in their behalf and we give
another reason why they do not. Moth
ing can be more essential to tho inter-
esis OF the sup country" than the devel.
opment OF manufactures in that portion
of our State. If the Greenville aud CO.
m hin RaSlrnnI n naf in "a II
desire to foster these Important enter
"exceedingly fortunate" But even here
tho tyrannfcal and discriminating spirit
Of the Richmond and Danville corpora
the upper part of the State imported very
recently lot of machinery from Now
York its use.
The freight from New York to Charles
ton by sea was $24. From Charleston to
Columbia via the South Carolina Railway
1t wasSi4. From Columbia to the station
were It was delivered the freight was S5S
Comment is unnecessary.
The figures used in the editorial Of the
INTELLIGENCER comparing Greenwood
and Anderson's Western rates were,
90 far as Greenwood was concerned, taken
from an article published in the Green.
vile Ners some two weeks previous,
without any contradiction from any
source, and We therefore presumed they