Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

Thursday, March 27, 1952 = THE CLINTON CHRONICLE T rannnt Co-Ops of whom I am one. I have had quite a lot to say about public power, but I am not thinking about our local Co-Ops; the menace is the control of big power enterprises by the bureaucrats in Washington. As a Co-Op myself I may suggest to my brethren that the Co-Op lines were not built because of low er rates! the truth is that private power companies sell most of the power used by us Co-Ops. The power used at both places of mine is sold to the Cooperatives by the Carolina Power & Light Co., and I remember reading that the South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. offered a rate—or has in effect a rate—lower than the rate offered by any public power group. But the real reason for the Co-Ops (and a good one) was that private com panies could not afford to spend OFFICE SUPPLIES Complete line, an the little items needed for the office, v CHRONICLE publishing cd. Phone 74 Pacre Five I par bale, ! As the harvesting season pro gressed, the Crop Reporting Ser vice continued to give out its report ! on an estimated production. These ( estimates were on August 8, 17,- ,266,000, on September 10, 17,291,- 000, on October 8, 16,931,000, on No vember 8,15,771,000, and on De cember 11, 15,290,000. This was a ' reduction in the estimate ' of the crop of approximately 2,000,000 bales. On July 1, the acreage in cultiva tion to be harvested was' estimated at 29,510,000, on September 1, 28,- 544,000 was estimated to be har vested. October 1, 28,544,000 was again reported. November 1, they reported the identical of 28,544,000 An American soldier in Germany writes me that he plans to come home and operate a farm. He is interested in a farm of mine near the home of his childhood. In my thoughts I can see that bright boy now, grasping the plow handles and following the mule. He was a [ acres. On December 1, the v acreage small boy then but a lad of energy i estimate was reduced to 26,698,000, and industry; and he always waved: or a reduction of approximately when I passed. I share his dream! 2,000,000 acres. As a result of this and hope he may own and operate that farm. . We don’t make professional sol diers out of our boys. They do their duty; they fight; sometimes one doesn’t come back; but they dream of returning to the old home and old friends and loved ones. What about cotton? The farmers will remember the bungling of last year which cost millions of dollars to them; they will remember that the man who needed every dollar had to sell his cotton at a low price that was due to government bung ling. Tom Linder of Georgia has set out the facts in his Market Bul letin. I quote him: "The cotton Jarm^Egjwerit^ahead pity of.it is that by that time most and planted their crop for 1951, many of them under the impression that the Government would see that they received 45 cents per pound. Many people do not differ entiate between a ceiling price and a floor. When the Government said 45 cents they simply took it for granted that the Government meant 45 cents. They planted their 1951 crop under this misap prehension and many of them were very much disappointed at prices received in the fall of 1951. On July 1, 1951, the Crop Report ing Service came out with their es timate of 29,510,000 acres in culti vation. On August 8, they came of the cotton had passed out of the farmers hands on he basis of the high estimates and low price that had been received by the farmer.” I know what the farmers think: What do you businessmen and pro- fesional men think of that? —How can anyone operate a business with such pernicious Government med dling? What aloout this year and the crop of 1952? Can the farmer ex pect fair treatment and honest re porting? Or is he to be the victim again of the habitual ineptitude that characterizes" ' this' Adminis-- ] tration? This is not politics; this i is bread and meat; this is a farm- oyt with estimated production of jep , s living the hard -won reward 1 <,266,000 bales. As a resu t , j on g mon th s of toil and sweat, these estimates of acreage and P rc >' I battling the elements and the pests, duction, the of cotton took a j wor j t i n g suc h help as he can severe drop. The price of co on ge ^ and b est |j lat can Shall we have even ’’an equal 1 chance with foreign cotton pro ducers, or shall we find the bureau- on June 28, which is before the acreage estimate was released, was 45.25 cents per pound. On August ^ ^ ^ 9, immediately after the produi -1 crats WO rking against him? tion estimate was announced, cot ton had dropped to 35.13 cents per pound. This was a loss of more than 10 cents per pound, or $£0.00 NOTICE OF SALE The State of South Carolina, County of Laurens. In Court of Common Pleas M. S. Bailey & Son, Bankers, vs. Plaintiff. William B. Dillard, Moses Dillard, Julia Dillard and Robert M. Vance, ^ . Defendants. Pursuant to a decree of the court in the above stated case, I will sell at public outcry to the highest bid der, either in or in front of the Court House, at Laurens, S. C., on Salesday .in April next, being Monday, the 7th day of the month, during the legal hours for such sales, the following described property, to wit: All that piece, parcel or lot of land situate, lying and being on the east side of South Bell Street and on the south side of D Street in the Town of Clinton, in Laurens County, State of South Carolina, bounded on the north by D'Street, one hundred and forty (140) feet, more or less, there on; on the east by lot heretofore sold by William B. Dillard and Moses Dillard to Bertha Ferguson, one hun dred and five (105) feet, more or less, thereon; on the south by lot now or formerly of estate of Jesse Thom as, one hundred and forty (140) feet, more or less, thereon; and on the west by South Bell Street, one hun dred and ten (110) feet, more or less, My Co-op brethren seem to dis own me. In a recent issue of "South Carolina Electric Co-op News” I find a generous expression about me which is very gratifying; I thank the Editor for his good spirit. I quote, in part, what he says: “In Manning, South Carolina, there dwells a gentleman by the name of J. K. Breed in. This gen tleman is well traveled, well edu cated and has been called a man of letters. It has been reported that Mr. Breedin is the gentleman who calls himself ‘Spectator,’ and who ap pears in a number of weekly news papers throughout the state. Spectator each week staggers through hundreds of lines of type matter under the weighty burdens of varied problems. He covers ev erything from how to pay your in come tax to telling off Mr. Truman. Especially does Spectator extoll the varied, and somewhat spotty, virtues of the commercial power companies. The commercial com panies are paragons of private en terprise—yea, even free enterprise. (How Spectator reconciles free en terprise and the tight monopoly of the commercial power companies, he i neglects to tell us.) In telling of the self-sacrificing and long-suffering struggles of the commercial power companies, Spectator frequently lambasts Elec tric Cooperatives in no uncertain terms. He has even been known to let the word ‘Socialism’ creep into thereon. Said lot of land is all of the ^ parcel of landtkkoretofore devised to|j^ “olumm / TW1 - t l 1 \ I 1 1 M .3 i\/I /"v e* i « ■ • . But to be a top columnist, Spec us (William B. Dillard and Moses Dillard) under the names of William B. Dillard and Moses J. Dillard, by the terms of the last will of their uncle, Moses Dillard, deceased, with the exception of a portion thereof heretofore sold and conveyed by us (William B. Dillard and Moses Dill ard) to J. D. Henry by deed dated June 6, 1950, and recorded in Deed Book 98, at page 250, in the office of the Clerk of Court for Laurens County, South Carolina, and with the further exception of a portion tator should bend over backward to give both sides of the story. He might now and then mention that the Co-Ops are owned and controll ed by South Carolinians instead of New York financiers. He might mention that the Co-Ops were formed because it was the only way farmers could get electricity at a reasonable price, i But then, there’s no use going on this way as there appears no way to get Spectator to change his mind. „ thereof heretofore sold and conveyed by us (William B. Dillard and Moses! To this I replied: Dillard) to Bertha E. Ferguson by “Editor deed c^ted May 9, 1951, and record- South Carolina Electric Coopera ed on May 11, 1951, in Deed Book 103, at page 79, in the office of the said Clerk of Court. Terms of Sale: Cash. The success ful bidder, other than the Plaintiff herein, immediately upon the con clusion of the bidding, shall deposit with the Clerk of Court the sum of ten (10%) per cent of the amount of Jiis or her bid as a guarantee of his good faith in the bidding. The same to be applied to the purchase price upon his complying with the terms of sale, otherwise to be paid to Plain tiff for credit on the indebtedness. In the event the successful bidder should fail to make such deposit, or should fail to comply with the terms of sale, the said lands shall be re sold on the same or some subsequent Salesday on the same terms, at risk of the defaulting purchaser. The purchaser to pay for papers, stamps and recording. W. E. DUNLAP, C. C. C. P. & G. S. Dated March W, Iftt. tive News Columbia, S. C. My Dear Sir: Your very gracious references to me are appreciated. The only er ror is this: You refer to me as an enemy of the Co-Ops: As a matter of fact, I am a Co-Op, two of my places being served by a Coopera tive. Furthermore, the record* in my county show that I have- given rights-of-way to the REA and two or three times to Cooperatives, as I recall. I ask that this be published by you as a correction of one refer ence in your generous editorial. With appreciation, I am, Cordially your*. J. K. Breedin. P. S. I submit a copy of Specta tor, which indicates that I do give both sides. A handsome acknowl edgment from Mr. Hammond (Chairman, Santee-Cooper) might be cited, as well as gracious let ters from Mr. Jefferies. or .fifteen hur.dxed dallar^ th; .'e gallons -of miik in quart a mile for tines in order to sell five . ties, could they? - - dollars worth of power a month. > There is no quarrel between us" My farm Co-Op brethren couldn't I may feel a bit .‘‘peaked ’ that my operate a milk truck over several j Co-Op editor regards rne as an out- miles a day in order to sell two or'sider when the record shows that I not only am served at two placo* as a Co-Op, but that as a Co-Op I gave rights-of-way — gave these. And as my fellow Co-Op, I thank you and wish you well, you and all my brethren of the Electric Co-Ops. Make mealtime refreshment time persistent high estimate of acreage and production, cotton prices con tinued to decline until September 13, when it was quoted at 34.38 cents per pound. After that the price of cotton be gan to go up because the cotton traders and merchants began to realize that the Government was over-estimating the crop. By No vember 1, the price had reached 38.26 cents per pound. On Novem ber 8, the Government reduced its estimate to 15,771,000 bales and by November 15, the price of cotton had gone to 42.11 cents per pound. The final ginning figures of the Government as of January 16, 1952, showed only 14,508,000 bales. The NEWBERRY COLUMBIA GREENVILLE CHARLESTON .... KNOXVILLE. TENN. ATLANTA, GA. MONTGORMERY, ALA. NEW ORLEANS, LA CHICAGO, ILL. DETROIT, MICH. NEW YORK, N. Y. .. WASHINGTON, D. C. DALLAS, TEXAS..... DENVER, COLO. .... S .55 1.60 1.10 4.50 5.00 4.75 8.00 13.90 16.20 15.15 15.05 10.85 20.75 31.00 Phil Tmx. Extra Sarinji on Round Tripa CLINTON BUS STATION E. Carolina Ave. Phone 59 GHEYHOL1VD Wherever you go, ice-cold Coke is almost always at your elbow. . It belongs beside your plate, too. Enjoy it right from the frosty bottle. •omio UNoet authority dr thc coca-coia company iy GREENWOOD COCA-COLA FLING CO.. Greenwood, S. C. "Cokm-hoi © 033. THf COCA-COLA COMPANY They show why a Chevrolet Truck costs you less to own and operate CHEVROLET ami trim llhmtralad k da- ml am mamilaklUty at amtarioU Fact No. 1... Saves you money on purchase Fact'No. 2...Cuts operating costs Fact No. 3... Tho right truck for your job Fact No. 4... Saves by lower depredation Just about two and a half million users of Chevrolet trucks are proving you can’t buy a better truck to save your money. You save when you buy. You save on operation and upkeep. You save on getting the job done fast and right. You save when you trade. Cons on in and let’s talk over your hauling or delivery needs, and then take a look at the kind of truck you want on your job. " ^ CUES CHEVROLET CO. Inc SI Wact Main Stmt 8. C.