Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-10-23
ALLIANCE" COTTON.
Does the Sale OF Cotton In Large Bulk
shut Ont Competition!
4 Criticism in kindly Spirit OF the Alliance
Cotton-seiiing Policy.
ro Nd Edlior of the 1000.

To the Editor OF the Gazette. n
DALLAS, TIN, OCT ~. a
The Farmers alliance and kim /
dred organizations are meeting with {
some sctbacks in their efforts to I
control and fix the prices of their :
products. In several instances they have
sold their cotton In bulk but not In a few :
have they been compelled to dissolve the
pool in order to find buyers for their cot /
I ton. This is to be regretted, because il
I demonstrates that the farmers are acting
unwisely IN the premises The alliance
( is capable Of accomplishing much good
! for those who are admitted to its fold,
/ but moments reflection should be suf-
icient TO convince the members that ac-
cumulating vast quantities OF cotton and
Offering IL in bulk is positive aggraya
I ton of the monopolstic tendencies which,
I professedly at least, they are engaged I'm
combating. We hear daily almost of 4
hundreds OF bales OF cotton being held by /
this or that confederation OF lodges for a 4
certain sum. This, at first blush, looks /
well enough and no doubt the farmer
thinks he is standing shoulder TO shoulder |
with his neighbor in n laudable effort to
secure fair prices for the fruits of their |
labors, but 1t Is fact which should be
apparent To all, that only one cotton buyer
in dozen, perhaps,ca handle as large an
amount of cotton as 1000 bales, and into
the hands of these large dealers does the
alliance force its members, where the
competition offered by small buyers can
not benefit them and where they must
take what they can get from those few
able 10 handle so large quantity There
are many cotton buyers who consider
themselves fortunate if they secure
an order for fifty or 100 bales
and they pay for this the
very highest figure possible, contenting
themselves with small commission.
These men could and would pay more
for what they can handle than would the
large dealer, because, like men in any
kind Of business on n small scale. they
are anxious to turn their money over as
rapidly as possible without waiting for
large profits. If the policy of the ALI
Is ance were carried out the stimulus given
he To prices by the competition offered by
II the small buyers would be withdrawn
b. and the cotton trade would be practically
as in the hands of very few large dealers,
nd who could fix prices to suit themselves
he The idea upon which the alliance acts i,
II that the cotton-buycrS arc organized t.
r. keep down prices While this may be
IL true in isolated instances, as genera
a proposition II is grotesquely absurd
,ly rhcre is more throat-cuttng and othe
I'd, competitive tuSslcs between Cotton-buy
to ers than between any other class of deal
ers. Let some cottou-buycr who has abou
money or credit enough of his own t
p margin fifty or. loo bales OF cotton have
III small order TO M, and he viii run th,
largest dealer out of the market, because
he will pny price which viii leave hin
ma only the scantIest commission in order I,
secure the amount required before thu
If market goes against him. This OitCl
puts prices up for day at least, and thi
OF is lost by forcing large lots upon the MAJ
kct in bulk. There is another obiecto
on which farmers should see, and that
that in hulking large quantities. the ma
who raises the .'dog earedn cotton ~
ccivcs rs much for II as he who raises tn
finest staple; or, to put the proposiuo
Ga. conversely, the man who raises the fines
staple receives the same figure for it u
the one who raises the poorest and dirt
VIZ, lest. Good cotton seldom raises the gel
n cral average of bad lot, while lttI
bad cotton often reduces materially ia
average of good lot Thus, while, pei
II hapS ifty bales of the 1000 would brin
Ill only $50, onc-half of it would bring 81
IL and the rest cents OF over. There
IN little, if any, added onto the price of tn
II inferior staple, while the superior Is n
duced much below what ii would brin
en- on its merits, which entails a loss upo
the owner of quite considerable. Thel
are hut few who would not like to SO
the Farmers alliance prosper, for frol
this same source must we expect 10 r.
ceiyc the law-making powers OF the stat,
The question which should hold the attcl
ton of the members, however, is, whcthC
or not they are standing in their oW
light, defrauding themselves of their iu'
dues and encouraging monopollcs-the
worst and bittercst cnemieS--by rcndc
ing competition on small scale pract
callv impossible. C.. Nj.