The Birmingham age-herald., 1908-10-21
Two Cotton Meetlnns.

Two Cotton Meetinqs.
 The spirit of rivalry between the two cotton organizations. or perhaps. it would be better ot say between President Harvie Jordan of the Southern Cotton as- sociatIon and President Charles S. Bar rett O. .he Farmers union, is again man. ifest in the effort to get the cotton pro- ducers together in a big meeting for the purpose of seeing if some steps cannot be taken to boost up the price of the staple.
 Both have called meetings of the cotton producers to be held for this purpose at practically the same time. The calls were issued on the same day, President Jordan calling all those interested in higher price for cotton to meet in Memphis on November 10 il and 12, and President Barrett calling representatives of the Farmers union and all others interested in a higher price for cotton to meet in New Orleans on November Il and 12.
 Manifestly 1t is impossible for a delegate to attend both conventions, and 1t Is a dead sure thing that all the Farmers union element, which is a pretty strong one, will respond to the call of Presi- dent Barrett and go to the New Orleans meeting. Very few of them would have gone to the Memphis meeting, even if the New Orleans meeting had not been called. The Farmers union and the Southern Cotton association have never trained very strongly together and 1t may be se- riously questioned if the efforts and ener- gies of both of them have not been ma- terially weakened as a result
 1t reduces itself, then, to a contest be- tween the New Orleans and the Memphis meetings, for all those not connected with the Farmers union. Though the Farmers union Is a secret organization, President Barrett has departed somewhat from his usual custom and has invited all others interested in the proposition in hand to join in with the union In the New Orleans meeting. President Jordan, likewise, has broken away from organization bounds and urges everybody who wants to see cotton go up to come to Memphis.
 What it is proposed to do at these meet ings will, no doubt depend much upon conditions at the time. And there is every reason to believe that cotton will have gone up of its own motion by that time, for the national election will then have passed by several days, and it is to be expected that business conditions will be more settled.
 It would appear to the spectator disin- terested from every standpoint but that of seeing increased prosperity in the south, that better results might be attained by the union of these interests in one big meeting which would afford evidence of a solid front on the part of the southern cotton grower and his friends.
 But 1t is hardly likely that any such harmonious cooperation will be brought about The prospects are that both meet ings will be held, and though they will be working to the same end, the fact that they are disassociated is likely to make accomplishment more difficult.
 Practical Test.
 Atlanta near-beer dealers are going to give the courts which have been prosecute ing them for violation of the prohibition law a dose Of their own medicine, so to speak They propose to prove by wit nesses far outnumbering those of the prosecution that the beverage they dis pense does not produce intoxication, even when drunk to excess.
 It came out today that I. c. Clark. whose case is on the city court docket soon to be called on the charge of violat- ing the prohibition law by selling beer that is beer, has secured close on to 100 witnesses who are ready to go before the court and swear that they drank four. five, six or even more bottles of Clark 8 near-beer and that it did not floor them. The object of this line of defense Is to overcome the evidence of the prosecution by sheer weight. Some time ago, in the interests of prohibition, i. was said. pr. U. c. Cartledge of this city drank several glasses of beverage sold as near-beer, and witnesses who saw him take the drinks testified that he was drunk The defendant in this particular case was con- victed. Similar testimony has been brought to bear in another case tried this week. the object being to meet the defect in the prohibition law which. according to the construction of the court of ap- peals requires that 1t must be proven in each case of so-called near-beer that it will produce intoxication, if drunk to ex- cess in order to justify conviction.
 Now the near-beer dealers have con- ceived the idea of meeting the issue with the same sort of testimony, but whole lot more of 1t. As against one man who swears that four bottles of a certain near beer made him drunk, the dealer Is get ting ready to put up 25, 50 or even 100 witnesses if necessary, who will swear they drank just as much or more and still retained their equilibrium.
 It would appear that this would put the preponderance of the evidence in their favor, but 1t remains to be seen what view the court and jury will take of the plan. If the near-beer men succeed in making 1t work, the Good Government league will have to find some other means of convincing courts and juries that the average near-beer sold in Atlanta easily makes drunk come.
 
 GRAND JURY ADJOuRNs.