The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1889-11-27
DID TEXAS BREAK FAITH2
4 Strong Open Letter 10 President Dom
nldsOp.
Cotton Plant

COTTON planL
Hon. NJ. L. Donaldson, GreeDville. S. c.:
DEAR SIR: Having read an article
healed Gan Unjust Charge" in the last
number of the Cotton Plant, which was
reply to certain structures upon Col.
Ben. Terrell, by the Cheraw Reporter,
and fully agreeing with said reply, and
not wishing to reflect upon Col. Terrell
or the National Cotton Committee, l
think it timely to throw a little more
light upon the whole matter, and let the
censurc rest where it belongs.
Early in October, seeing the receipts
in the Gulf States, and in Texas, cspe-
cially, were as large as usual, and that,
too, in the face of the instructions from
the National Cotton Committee, with the
fact that Texas alone produced nearly
one.fourth the cottou crop, and by vir-
the Of her age, experience and former
leadership in the Alliance movement, be-
getting our confidence, many of our
farmers became dissatisfied, feeling they
were unfairly dealt with, because we in
our county, and from all we could see
over our State, felt bound to obey the ir-
structions of the committee. Some
withdrew from the order rather than hold
cotton while other States sold. To sat-
isfy myself and brethren of the facts of
the case, at once wrote you in your
official capacity the facts, and asked for
Information. You replied ':you could
not think there could be any studied du-
plicity on the part of our Gulf States
brethren, for purpose of gaining undue
advantage of more loyal BRETHREN" and
stated you had forwarded my letter to
Col. R. j. Sledge for reply. In few
days received the following letter:
MANOR, TRAVIS Co., TEXAS, |
October 2Sth, 1889.
Mr. Charles Crosland:
DEAR SIR AND BROTHER: Your letter
to Brother N. L. Donaldson was referred
by him to Col. R. j. Sled ge, and by him
to me for an answer. The request came
to my people too late for them to accept
it this year, as they had already made
their arrangements, and could not alter
them. So We did not act on the request
of the Cotton Committee.
Yours fraternally,
JOHN D. FIELDS,
President State Alliance.
Now, sir, this letter needs but little
comment. Any intelligent farmer can
see and read between the lines. While
Brother Fields may have been powerless
to control his people, We feel we have
beer overreached By the Texas brethren.
First-Is the action of the Cotton
Canmittee a request simply, or is it in.
struction from an organization sworn to
fidelity to each other, and bound by the
action of its own State delegates in Gre
ating such committed
Second--I know not what arrange
ments the brother referred to, except it
be those to make the crop. These we all
made, and no honest man wished them
violated. The Cotton Committee strictly
charged that all maturing obligations be
cancelled by sale of cotton. But did this
preclude whole State and organization
from coming into line where they could9
trow not. Better late than never.
Well, Brother Donaldson, only deemed
it fair to give these facts to the State.
While we feel hurt, we are not cast
down. We will pick our fints and try
again; but We say now q do not assume
to speak for the State), we in this county
intend to see to it another year that
when the request comes again from the
Cotton Committee that Texas toes the
mark before we hold our cotton again.
In spite of these facts, many are still
holding cotton, and we believe eventu-
ally will be we'll paid for it, though |
without thanks from Texas. Had it not
been for the strong statistical position OF
cotton, the action of Texas might have
done US much harm, and now as we
have the credit OF holding large blocks
of cotton as an organization, now think
it in order and only justice to US to dis
pei this illusion from the minds OF the
commercial world, and call attention to
the official declaration Of Texas, where
so much cotton is made.
Yours fraternally,
CHAs. CROsLAND.
49,