The weekly Union times. [volume] (Union C.H., South Carolina) 1871-1894, 1891-11-27
Gone OF Half Cooked.

Our correspond mt Kelton Wheel, GER
tainly goes off half-cocked, ms our old Sher O
]. Rice Rodgers, ms d 10 ssy Of us, WHOM
We said any thing that did not please him.
In order that we may be fully understood
in the matter we publish Whist our friend
said last week which we thought demanded
q notice from us:
There is great deal being said about the
mercantile fraternity not selling any thing on
time in uinety-two. Now think the mer-
chant, had better SO slow on that line, for
fear they will loose more than they will
gain by the operation. 1t might do very
well we'll for them to close down on cred
iing for.dry goods but to refuse the farm.
ers credit for provisions, under the condi-
lions and circumstances now in the country.
would bring ruin and disaster upon the til
lers Of the soil and those in other avocaticps.
and would certainly cause less debts 10 be
paid than would be under ether circums. aces.
As an illustration, we will take q man tbat
owes oil he will make this year, and all the
merchants say we will not credit out a single
dollars worth of dry goods or provisions in
w. That man would sell his crop and put
fhe money IN has pocket, knowing that hc
could not get credit any more, and toho could
ing that without money he would have TO 20
hungry and cold. This is only hint TO
show what thing of that kind would lead
to. expect to be shot at by some fellow
Tor writing what l have. 1t may be that
l am wrong, but it is my honest opinion and
am bound 10 speak what think, if it be
exped;ent.
ln the first place, we never said that the
Merchants of Union had threatened NOT 10
give credit for supplies next year.
In the mex, place it is merely matter of
taste between saying I am not pillng and I
am not d6le to give credit. 1t is the same
thing in Dutch
In The next place we can't point our freud
to any particular Bank, corporation or in
diuidual whose failure was caused directly
by the Farmers, nor did we say so; but
we did say and say, yet, their failures were
from not being able to make collections, and
the Wholesale merchants be,ngmainly the suf-
ferers wei pushing the country merchants,
etc. And here, respected friend, is where
the willingness or ability of the country
merchants to give credit lies: If the whole
sale merchants refuse credit to the retail
merchants, how anu where can the latter
get supplies to sell to Farmers on credit?
But yoIr great mistake is in accusing
us of charging you with dishonesty. We
did no such thing. You certainly will not
deny that in the above extract you sa9geszea
that If the merchants threaten to refuse credit
for supplies in 1902, "the farmer who owes
all ne makes this year would sell his crop
and put The money in his pocket" In that
you may not suggest to the Farmer to do such
n dishonest act, but as We understood YOU
1t was a suggestion that such may be the
result of such threat. But, when You
further say, land who can blame him
(the farmer,) for being guilty of such an
act You no. only acknowledge it to be q
(dishonest) act, but. you taoitly endorse aud
commend il,
No doubt, you arc quite as honest as we
are. and perhaps you would not inten.
tional'y encourage farmers or any one else
to do dish onest act, and on the contrary We
said we did not believe the Farmerf of Union
would commit such an indiscreet and dis
honest act as you suggested in your illustra-
tion, they might do which you call "a hint
to show VIII thing of that ud,..wAnld
You also said, II expect 70 be .hot at by
some Jello,o for writing what have" Well, as
you said they we're "your honest opinions