The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1913-08-13
WE WANT TO BE SHOWN.

WE WANT To Be Sh0SN.
The communication from }. ).
Cantey, Esq, Of Summerton in
this issue is the best we have
yet read from his pen. His sub
ject is one of interest to many,
and, because of its Importance,
there will be many who will take
opposite views on it. Mr.. Cantey
however, is mistaken IN the view
that we are ''antagonlstlc to the
best interests of the farmers. "
We have not taken an antago-
nistic position, nor have we
taken a position to endorse Mr..
Cantey's contention. Our COM
mept was more in the nature OF
inquiry than criticism. What
troubles US in a matter Of this
kind, is to find out the practical
effect: if to give the landlord
the prior claim upon the pro
ducts of the rented soil, will not
keep the tenant from securing
supplies where it suits him best,
then it is alright for the land
lord to have the prior right pro
viding, there is some way to
protect the tenant from unjust
claims that may be made against
him by his landlord. Suppose
the law. gave to the landlord the
prior claim for supplies upon the
tenants crop without any writ
ing, what protection has the
tenant against an overcharged
account, for instance, he bought
his fertilizers at one price, but
when paying time came his land
lord claimed a greater price, and
proceeded to take the crop:
Would not the fact of the land
lord having the prior claim tend
to prevent the merchant or other
|person who is in position to
furnish supplies, from risking
his money on the lands of an.
other? Then if the owner of
the land is unable to furnish
supplies will he not have to
transfer his prior claim to the
person who is able to do the fur
nish,ng. before he can get his
land tenanted? VIII not this
condition tend to force him to
become security for the advances
and eventually have to mortgage
his lands to secure advances for
his tenants?
Under the law Us construed
by the court, a landlord is not
prevented from furnishing sup
plies, but when he does, he must
take the same protection anyone
else would have to take, and
comply with the same laws that
are for giving public notice Of
his security, so that innocent
people need not make advances
blindly. It is no trouble for the
landlord to require the tenants
he proposes to furnish to sign a
lien for the amount agreed upon,
and have the same indexed on a
public record, it would prevent
disputes as to the amount Of the
supplies furnished when settling
time comes, and it would serve
notice on others if they furnish
supplies, that they do so at the
risk of being subject to the land
lords prior security. But let
the law to give the landlord the
mastery over his tenants, in our
opinion, it would bring on con-
dition similar to that which the
people of Ireland are oppressed
with by the landed aristocrisy;
| it would not be many years be-
fore the lands would he owned
! BY the few, and these few. either
from being land burdened can
not make the tenantry content,
or IRON arrogance drive the
tenant class from their lands
into the cotton mills or other
pursuits in search of bread.
The thought herein expressed
| is not with a view Of antago-
nism, but for the purpose of get
ting those who favor giving to
the landlords more power over
their tenants than exists now, to
show by argument how it will
better the relation between
them, and whether or not from
a business viewpoint it is wise
to entrust this power to a class.
There is much room for argu
ment on both sides of a matter
| of this nature without either
side being guilty of selfshness or
antagonism to any particular
class.
According to correspondence
between the State treasurer and
the governor the treasury is
.,,n,;,r ehort o,,3 poonov iS