The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1920-10-12
HARRIS DEFENDS
COTTON POSITION
SAYS STAPLE YET WORTH
FIFTY CENTS POUND
Says Law of Supply and Demand
not Functioning in
Market.
To the Editor of The State:

To the Editor of The State:
On Monday last I sent you reply
to certain statements with reference
to the commissioner of agriculture
made by Mr.. W. A. Clark, we'll
known Columbia banker. AS my ar
ticle seems to have miscarried, ask
you to publish the following state
ment:
Mr.. Clark alleged in his article
that certain of the people Of South
Carolina, "led by persons as ignorant
as. themselves" had held their cot
ton through a period when they
could have received something more
than 40 cents per pound, and that
these owners of cotton had been mis-
led by ''false prophets" who said
that cotton would bring so cents.
Now, wish to say to Mr.. Clark;
and to the people of South Carolina
through the opportunity thus afford.
ed me, that I did my duty. l have
no regrets, nothing to be ashamed
Of. l am proud of the course that l
pursued, consistent with my teach
ings for the last 20 years. Is MIR.
Clark's present course consistent
with his lifelong policy? I say to-
day, as 1 have said repeatedly, that
If the law of supply and demand were
operating cotton would be worth in
trinsically more than so cents. That
is all that ] have said, and 1t was
true.
If I am singled out as one of Mr..
Clark's false prophets, / will ask why
he was mot fair enough to state the
whole case-and let the people Judge
as t who. ale rthe true and proper
friends ef the cotton growers? A
wear ago advised the farmers not
to sell long staple cotton for it was
worth 81 a pound. They waited and
they got it. Mr.. Clark does me the
honor to say that "many' availed
themselves of the advice that gave
them and on his statement to that eff
feet I will suggest that if l, and
others. had not urged the farmers to
keep their cotton off the market, the
price never would have gone to 4O
cents. The action Of cotton IN that
respect was the result not Of ner-
yous movement, but of two years OF
effort to organize the South against
the depredations of the spectators.
Deaation in Force.
And just when we got the price OF
cotton to where it would pay the
farmers for growing it, here comes
along this new born infant prodigy
of "defation,'' and accomplishes the
actual defation of one lone, poor
commodity in the United States
that is cotton in the fields. At least
we know of no other that has been
so seriously affected, and then only
after the farmer had put his money
into the making Of the crop. why
not before?
I would have been justified by the
facts, and I would have been true
prophet of the people had l IN the
spring of 1914 advised the farmers
to hold their cotton for 20 or 20
cents. That was according to the
law of supply and demand. Yet IN
August of that year there came
great war and the law of supply and
demand was suspended and the price
of cotton went to FIVE cents. That
was an abnormal, unexpected and we
hone never to be repeated catss-
tronhe. War! Is there any natural
reason why we should today have
repetition of the calamity OF l9l4!
say there is not.
The law of supply and demand IS a
law of natural circumstances. Ihefe
is no more moral right to suspend
such law in peace times than there
is to suspend the law of habeas cor
pus-which is the great bulwark OF
civil liberty. The law of supply and
demand should be our defense
agains: the predatory inter-
ests which would impoverish the
South, if they could to make "a Kill
ing in big profits for themselves
Yet, this very immoral and unthlnk-
able crime of commerce has been
committed against the South.
Told Farmers to Buy.
/ charge that Mr.. Clark has made
a nisstatement of facts concerning
nv position, and as l am sure he did
, it unknowingly, wish to set him
: Continued on page 2.l