Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-05-25

Ing It's credit, anu putting u upon tue
brink of failure, while it may serve to
show the hatred of monopoly for labor,
will offer no excuse for the managers OF
the E Exchange Being posted as to this
hatred in advance, they had no right to
walk into the trap laid for them, q i'd take
along with them notes for thousands OF
dollars of good, honest farmers hard
earned money.
But is this combination the result Of
hatred? Let us see. The note sent out
by the Exchange, or at least one form OF
them, is SIS follows:
No
On or be ore the - day of -, 1859, W,
or either of us promise to pay to the Farmers
Alliance Exchange Of Texas, or order, for
value received, the sum of - dollars. This
note is given in payment for goods, wares and
merchandise purchased for US and shipped to
the city of Dallas, Tex.
Given under OUT hsnds at -, in the
S sSs ana the sf5e IS Ie1A this
(Then follow blanks for any number of sigma
tures.)
Accompanying the numbered blank note
shown Texas Farmer, was another blank,
and q very suggestive one, as follows:
No
Know all men by these presents: That the
Farmers Alliance Exchange of Texas hereby
contracts and agrees not to part ownership
WILL snt date pf thss cortrsce and maSa In
favor of said Exchange by certain members of
- Alliance. No. and that when said note
Is ade and PIeseneea 1Or .s creos % S
tween the face of the note and the amount due
the Elk hange for purchases made by the Pur
chasing Agent named in the heading of said
note. Given under my hand at Dallas, Texas,
CUNE, Business: Manager Farmers Allia zee
Exchange.
70 secure me their pro-ratss OF IN notes. as we
sian5es have enc given chatteI mortgsgss On
growing crops; providing that they are to be
charged interest at per cent per month from
mnIrUaae Wsp foI slo and the nurcbsss s ss
for any reason NO otu er purcha.e is n ace, the
siguer ia charged interest on 500 until the note
is paic'
Now, some questions: First-Ii the
Exchange was not going to part owner
ship with the note, why was not that con-
dition in the face OF the note2 Second
II the ownership was not to be trans
ierred, why was the note msde negotis-
BILE? Third-Ii it was condition Of the
note that when it was presented, credit
was to be given equal to the difference be-
tween purchases and its face, why was
not this condition put in face of note?
Fourth-If any credit was to be given on
note for goods not purchased, why were
the signers of the note asked to confess
in it's face that their purchasing agent had
already received goods, wares and mer-
chandise equal to the full value OF the
fsce Of the note.
Texas Farmer thinks the answers to
all OF above interrogatories are SO obvi-
GUS that 1t is needless to give them. L.
merely says this to the signers of those
notes-when due they are payable in
Dallas, can be sued on in Dallas and
Judgment in favor of the holder for face
value Is as sure a. that the stars are
above us. They sre not only Hfor yalue
received" but the consideration is
expressed and its discharge &C.
knowledged in the face Of the notes.
The separate contract which any
one may have made as above quoted, can
be plead perhaps against the Exchange,
but not against any other holder of note.
Whether the transfer of q note identical
In number, dste, etc with such q con-
tract as quoted, will subject its negoti.
ators to any other penalty, Texas Far
mer is not lawyer enough to say-but
has no hesitation in asserting that it
ought to. Now when these notes were
first put on the market, it was easy
enough to negotiate them. We hsye
been able to find the contract above re-
ferred to-the mortgage above referred
to-and have not cen able to reconcile
the different documents, taken in connec.
ton with the negotiable note copied, as
coming under the head of legitimate bust
ness. Bankers, business men-monopo-I
listssff you plesse-could as easily have
one blame people for ceasing to advance
money to the so-called Alliance Ex-I