The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1899-10-11
TIE NANNING TINES" VS.. Open
hn,NER, THE DRUMMER.


member a statement made by US that
Mr.. Oppelheimer travelling sales
man for the firm Of Ficken Jordan &
Co., grocers Of Charleston stated IN
Manning that the wholesale grocery
merchants of Charleston had held a
meeting, and resolved to refuse to
sell our merchants unless they first
signed written agreement to buy
the year through from Charleston,
instead of giving their fall business
to the Manning Grocery Company.
The article that appeared in The TINES
stirred up the righteous indignation
of the East Bay merchants when they
read it and naturally they, through
the heads of their organizations
adopted means 10 contradict Mr.. OPP
penheimer's false assertion.
The Charleston Post Of the 5th inst,
after reproducing The TINES article,
sent one Of its reporters out on the
'sBay," and the following is the result:
REpUD1ATED BY EAST BAY MERCHANTS.
a number of East Bay merchants were
seen this morning by representative OF
the Evening Post and were indignant that
such q report should be circulated. Every
merchant who was approached on the sub
ject denied in strong language that such
action had been taken by them.
Mr.. w. B. Wilson, president Of the Mer
there was not one word of truth IN the re-
port. He said that at no meeting of the
Merchants Exchange had the Manning
merchants been discussed and no resolu-
ton requiring the Manning merchants to
sign an agreement to purchase the year
round from Charleston merchants Was
passed. The whole thing was false from
beginning to end.
While the published article exonerated
the Carolina Grocery Company, Mr.. Wilson
said he was unwilling that the other East
Bay merchants should suffer, and as presi-
dert of the merchants Exchange he deem
ed it his duty to deny emphatically the re-
port that such resolution as quoted was
passed. Had such q step been taken he
would certainly have known it, for 1t would
have had to come through the Merchants
Excha age.
Mr.. Theodore Melchers, president of the
Wholesale Grocers Association said:
There is absolutely no foundation in
such q report. The Charleston grocery
merchants have never passed such reso-
luton and never will. How such state
ment could have been made I cannot see."
Messrs. Fincken i Jordan were seen and
said they knew of no such resolution Law
ing been adopted by the East Bay mer-
chants. If Mr.. Oppenheimer made such
statement in Manning he did so without
authority.
Mr.. Fincken said that Mr.. Oppenheimer
may have been jollying some Of the Man
ming merchants and they took it seriously.
Mr.. Oppenheimer will be in from the
road this week and he will be asked for au
explanation of the statement credited to
MIN.
Then came the following letter from
the president OF Charleston Division
Southern Wholesale Grocers Associa-
iion:
PRESIDENT MELcHERs IS INDIGNANT.
EDITOR TINES:
My attention les been called to an arti-
Gle in your paper where one Oppenheimer.
travelling for Fincker, Jordan & Co., Of
this City, told the merchants of Manning
that The Wholesale Grocers Association OF
Charleston had passed resolution, that
they (the merchants of Manning) would be
required to sign a written agreement to
enable them to procnre goods from them.
ifthey persisted iu patronizing or buying
from The Manning Grocery Company.
This is simply absurd, and I hardly
think it possible that anybody would be-
lieve statement, that q body of sensible
men would pass such resolution. OPP
penheimer must have been suffering from
abberration of the mind, or he told a will
ful falSehood. Such man should not be
allowed to travel on the road and should,
certainly not be patronized by respectable
merchants.
Yours truly,
TEEo MELcEERs,
President.