Hopkinsville Kentuckian. [volume] (Hopkinsville, Ky.) 1889-1918, 1890-03-21
EAvoRs HE rHoRNE BILL.

er hearing on the other side.
To begin with, l will state that
have not seen the bill, and am not in
formed as to the details of it. You
stated in one of your articles that you
would publish the bill in full in your
next issue If it was defeated. just
what good it would do to publish a
dead bill L do not understand, and it
furthermore seems to me it would
have been of vastly more Importance
to the people should you publish it
while under consideration or after it
became law. Be that as it may, l
infer from what you say of the bill
that one important section of it is
that no commission merchant shall
charge the farmer more than two dol
lars per hogshead for selling tobacco.
Presuming this to be fact, proceed
to answer some of the objections you
offer to the bill, and also to see that
if two dollars from the farmer would
not be reasonable, and allow reason
able compensation for his labor.
The first objection is that commits
sion men could not afford to handle
the tobacco at any such figures.
Twelve or fifteen years ago when to-
bacco sold ON the market at Hopkins
vile for more than double what it is
now selling for, if am not mistaken,
the price for selling was just what it
now is, viz: Two dollars and fifty
cents for storage and cooperage, one
per cent. commission, twenty five cents
insurance, and ten pounds off for the
sample. This from the planter with
an additional tax of two dollars should
the hogshead have to be resampled.
In addition to these charges the
buyer was charged one or two dollars
and twenty-five cents insurance.
These were the prices charged for sell
ing tobacco when tobacco was worth
something and farmers were getting
fair compensation for the labor be-
slowed in making it, but now it is SO
low that in great many instances as
to be absolutely below the cost of
production. That being the case, is it
anything but fair to ask division Of
expenses by the commission men.
They have grown rich and some OF
them have amassed princely fortunes
selling tobacco at the aforesaid fig
ures, while the farmers are constantly
growing poorer.
Go to one of your warehousemen
and look at his books and my word
for it he gets an average of six dollars
for every hogshead of tobacco he sells.
This is an outrage when tobacco is not
selling for more than fifty dollars per
hogshead ON an average. Twelve and
one-half per cent. of the value for
selling and storing.
The second objection is that it
would drive the tobacco trade from the
State. Now this is absurd. 1t would
either bring the charges down at other
markets or would build up the market
in Kentucky. In these days when
every farmer is lessening his expenses
and economizing in everything to
make buckle and tongue meet and
keep the wolf from the door, he is not
looking for markets that gouge him
deepest in the way Of excessive expense
charges. That it might drive out few
men who do small business is fact,
but a sufficient number would remain
in business to handle all the tobacco
they now handle and more, as tobacco
would then come to our market from
adjacent territory that now finds a
market in Tennessee and Ohio.
Third objection: The Changers
and Alliance men could get no rebate.
The very fact that they get rebate
shows that some one is overcharged.
If the warehouses are selling for the
smallest amount possible to allow
themselves fair compensation for
their labor and capital they could not
afford to give rebate to anyone. But,
to be able to give rebate, they must D.,
get from some more than is just, SO 9
hey can give back to others. This v
ooks like "robbing Peter to pay {
Paul" Again, if the warehousemen v
will agree to sell all tobacco for two q
dollars from the planter and one dol t
ar from the buyer l believe | would il
be safe in saying that no one would
lsk rebate. 1t was to be hoped that !
men would have lowered
their charges voluntarily and not
waited for the farmers to appeal to
he law-making power to force them q
0 meet the emergency. But some @
hing must be done, the farmer as a I
ule and as class is generally meek b
nd submissive and does not often n
rise and assert his rights, and for $
hese reasons he has been the newer 8
f wood and the bearer of burdens n
ON time immemorial, and when the n
oke gals too much and he is forced A
y oppression to ask relief where re- n
eff can be had, all other classes raise d
ieir hands as well as their eyes in Fl
oily horror at his impudence. Why fl
as the farmer not the same rights n
Al ~