The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1890-11-27
Stock Raising.


horses aud mules are pouring into the
cotton States. As soon as the marketing
of cotton fairly begins, and the farmer is
supposed to have some cash, the wiley
trader plies him with flaming advertise
ments of fine stock. How long will our
people pursue the policy of raising cotton
to buy mules wherewith to raise more
cotton. Will they never tire of this per-
petual moving in circle? 1t takes
about four bales of cotton to buy a good
mule; does any one believe, for a moment,
that it would cost farmer half that
amount to raise one? Ifnot, why do
our people persist in raising cotton to
buy mules Is it less trouble? Think
of the labor required to raise cotton
negro labor with all the irritations and
annoyances connected with it. Let the
difficulty of getting cotton picked, the
present season, bring this matter home
to our minds. Is it not our true policy
to reduce cotton to strictly surplus,
money crop? Do not the increasing
scarcity of labor, and both social and
political considerations urge 3 pursuance
of this COURSE Conceding the superiori.
ty of cotton to other crops as money
crop in the Southern States, why should
it be raised in place of other things that
are of actual necessity on the farm.
Why complicate the owing Of mule
with the uncertainties and annoyances
connected with labor, with the fuctua-
tions in value consequent upon specula-
ton in cotton, with the risks of panics
aud disturbances in the money market,
with the profits Of warehousemen, buyers,
railroads, wharf owners, shipowners and
the whole array of middlemen. Why
allow the farmers of Kentucky or Hi.
nois to get profit out of the mule before
be comes to you? Why allow the rail-
roads to put their hands into your pock.
cts for transporting him to you, and the
trader to gouge you still deeper for the
little work he does in bringing him to
your door. Consider how many profits
are taken out of the four bales Of cotton
and out of the mule, before the latter
reaches the farmer. Now, if he raises
the mule at home, how does the matter
stand? The mule can be raised without
the negro, no speculation, no tightness
in money market, no profits of middle
men, or of railroads intervene. The
western farmer and the trader get no
profit out of him. The farmer pays
nothing but the actual cost of raising the
mule. Is this 80 great that it exceeds
he first cost of the mule to the Kentucky
farmer, with all the profits mentioned
above added to it? Does any one be-.
lieye that? What advantage has q
Kentucky or Illinois farmer over Geor-
gia farmer in raising mule /? You say
their lands are richer and will grow
better grain and grass. Possibly so, but
their lands cost S100 an acre against $40
an acre in Georgia. They may grow
better blue grass than We can in Georgia,
but we can Offset that with Bermuda,
and our red clay soils will not lag far
behind in raising clover. Texas blue
grass bids fair in Georgia to rival Ken.
tucky blue grass in Kentucky. Two
years trial of it, in competition with
orchard, red top, tall meadow oat, and
English blue grass (festnca elator), on
our station ground at Athens, shows
great and marked superiority to them
all. 1t is evidently plant of wonderful
yigor in our hot climate. The winters
in Kentucky and Illinois are longer and
colder than ours, calling for more hous.
ing and winter feeding of stock. Labor
costs more with them than with US. In
striking balance, the advantages are
with the cotton States, and it would seem
that nothing but the momentum of a
long continued habit perpetustes the
folly of raising cotton to buy horses and
mules.-TE. L. j. IN Atlanta Constitution.