The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1889-10-19

A misunderstanding having arisen be-
tween Mr. j. H. McNeely's city merchant
and Mr. T. A. Clayton, State agent of the
farmers union. in consequence of which
up to this date Mr.. McNeely has been
unable to secure any cotton bagging, we
publish the following in explanation:
NEW ORLEANS, Sept. %. 1889.
j. II. McNeely. Esq.,, Colfax, La:
Dear Sir--In reply to your favor of the
Goth inst. we would state, as requested,
we called on Mr.. T. A. Clayton on receipt
of your letter and asked of him an ex-
PLANTATION of his letter to Mr.. w. ID.
Irwin dated Sept. Dist. In reply to this
he stated that he had not received an
answer to letter addressed to you ON
Sept. 5th, consequently he did not know
what to do and he let the matter drop.
This is all the explanation he would give.
Now, since we do not know anything OF
the correspondence between you and Mr..
Clayton, We would state to you what we
know and have done in the matter. AT
your most urgent request We have tried
and left nothing undone to procure the
cotton bagging for you. When We re-
ceived your first letter we called on the
Lane Mills but they could not fill the
order, but offered to take the order to be
delivered between the 18th of November
and the LIST of December, of this We
informed you at the time. As per your
letter of the 9th of August we called on
Mr.. Clayton, and his answer we stated to
you in our letter of Aug. 30th. During
the month of September we called on Mr..
Clayton several times, asking him about
the shipment of Your cotton bagging, and
on the 10th of September he Mr.. Clayton)
stated to our Mr.. Dupre that he would
ship the bagging to Mr.. McNeely in a
couple of weeks, and that he would col
| lect the bill at our office, as per your in
structions in letter to him. This re-
mark he made to our request of collecting
the bill at our Office. Now, as stated be-
! fore, there was nothing left undone to
procure the bagging for you when you
| first wrote US, and, after Mr.. Clayton
promised to ship the bagging, we made
no further effort; although, even if we
had, We do not think that We could have
succeeded to get the quantity you re-
quired, if any at all.
From your letter it seems that Mr.
| Clayton has placed you in an unpleasant
position, though We cannot see how you
can be blamed. Mr.. Clayton had your
order, and, we suppose, endorsed by the
alliance; he had directions, and he knew
where to collect his money, hence We car
not see why he did not ship, and especial.
ly when he promised to ship on Sept. 10
1t is mystery TO us how the alliance car
be lead to believe that you work against
their interest. or how any man or firm car
work against the farmers in order te
benefit trust who is not even identified
with this community, or why should an,
one be in sympathy with set Of men who
have planned scheme to plumber oul
Southern planters. Yet wise counse
should prevail, and of the two evils the
least should be chosen. The cotton bag
ging cannot be had. No discrimination
is made between the two wrappings. M
tare is to be taken off this season. Cottol
is going to be sold as it always has been
With kind regards, we remain, your
truly, GUMBEL Bios. a. MAYER,
per J. Lazarus.