The times and democrat. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1881-current, 1910-08-27
New Cotton Law.

the law passed at the last session of
the, Legislature, whereby all cotton
sold in this State may be covered
with bagging and ties to the extent
of six per cent. tare. One cotton
buyer over in Hartsville suggests
that no cotton be bought if the far
mers attempt to enforce this law
in selling their cotton. He wants
to boycott the farmers iCto taking
whatever, price the buyers should see
s: oTer for the staple. This buy
er should wake mp. The day has
passed when the farmers can be fore
ed to take any kind of an old price
that they may be offered for their
cotton.
The News and Courier says the
mem bers of the Charleston Cotton
Exchange are almost unanimously
opposed to carrying out the law, and
the directors of the exchange have
passed "a series of resolutions in
which the law is denounced as un-,
wise and injurious to the cotton in
terests of this port, and the ''exces-
sive bagging as contrary to all the
rules and regulations Of all cotton
exchanges, both domestic and for
eign." In preamble just proceed
ing the resolution above quoted, it is
said ''in our opirion, such law is
only attempting TO sell bagging cost
ing three and half cents per pound
as cotton at an average price Of
twelve to fifteen cents"
There is no ground, whatever, for
the charge made by the Charleston
Cotton Exchange that the farmers of
South Carolina are a lot of swiEdlers
who are attempting to sell three and
a half cents per pound bagging as
cotton for twelve or fifteen cents.
Such an indictment of the farmers
by one Of the chief commercial bod
les Of Charleston will do that port
more harm than the new cotton law
will. The farmers only want what
they are entitled to, and that they
are going to have, regardless of what
the Charleston Cotton Exchange may
think or say about it. The farmers
are not compelled 10 sell their cot
ton in Charleston.
The fact that the new cotton law
;o Il, ;,r;on- fo tna nntSop huc;r ooc. nP
Charleston is not conclusive, evidence
that it is an unwise law. The law was
passed to remedy an evil complained
of by the farmers that is supposed
to exist. If the evil does not exist
let the Charleston Cotton Exchange
substantiate the fact, and the law
will be repealed. Denouncing the
law as unwise and the farmers, who
had it passed, as lot of swindlers,
does not prove anything and will ac-
complish no good AS a class the
farmers are just as honest as any
other class. and they do not want the
tare If they are not entitled to it..
We have heard men who have Wis
tied the Liverpool Cotton Exchange
say that in fixing the price Of Amer
ican cotton the exchange allows six
pounds tare on every hundred pounds
Of cotton, and that the farmers in
this country to get paid for all of
his cotton should put thirty pounds
of bagging and ties on every four
hundred and seventy pounds Of lint
cotton. We have seen the same
statement time and time again in
the public prints, and have never
seen it, denied The law complained
of by the Charleston Cotton Exchange
was passed by the Legislature to pro-
tect the farmer in getting what be-
longs to him.
what We say above in reference
to the tare being fixed in Liverpool
is not true the Charleston Cotton
ought to have no difficult
ty in proving it untrue. Not by res
olutions denouncing the law and
false accusations against the
farmer, but by the testimony Of the
people in Liverpool who is said to
fix the tare. This is an important
matter, and it should be settled sar-
TO ALL If six per cent.
Of his cotton is knocked off in Liver
pool to allow for the bagg;1E and
ties, the farmer is clearly entitled
to put six per cent. bagging AID ties
on his cotton when he sells it. This
Is the whole thing in q nutshell