Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1855-04-25


attempton the part of Mr. Cooke gull the public into
the belief that the Cultivator had been endorsed as
the organ of the State Agricultural Society," and thus
toinjure the prospects of the Arator, naugre the
hypocrticaI ntsubsequcntly uttered in the Post
about the propriety of supporting Two agricultural
Journals in this place. Let any disinterested man
look at the facts, and he will be irresstaby forced
to the conviction that the object to take the start
of the "Arator" in public favor and patronage. If
it not why, after attempting in vain to get the
endorsement" did he send forth Ave thousand CO.
pics of his suspicious looking ratt-the H'St num-
Der of the " Cutivator under false colorS why
did he tell the world that the paper signed by four
of the committee and paradcd in that number was
an endorsement" which no has since been com
PEELED to take back and acknowledges was 40 " en-,
lorsement ?" All this may be very ~ air and open
in Mr. Cookies mode of drawing the current of puo-
lie E,vor-ayc quite barctaced; but what viii the
public think of such conduct when applied TO the
touchstone of "fair y and honorable dealing! Even
after the explosion Of that miserable abortton-the
cut and dried document in official form and language
which Mr.. Cooke set forth as an endorsement, he
explained it in such manner (and no one can uouot
with such design as to produce the impression on
persons generally who do not trouble themSeiHes TO
examine things critically, that the " Cultivator was
the choice of the Committee Else, why did he
characterize the document as an - emphat'c recon-
men6aton from gentlemen officially connected with
the Socicty?" Was there special design in the
use of this most impressive and Significant qualify
ing word .ssH Aaatic? ?" Can any one believe there
was no particular object intended by its introduction
INTO tn9C very allluily SNH'NtiNo ~
which he reluctantly took down the flag of Ell
dorsement?' Under these circumstances did not
fair and open competition require that the puoiic
should know why the Executive Committee, VINO
were expected las advertiscd) at their meeting on
the Cd inst to adopt an organ, adjourned without
doing so Believing it did, the Editor of the Ara
tor furnished the Editors Of the Standard what he
had learned and believed correct statement OF
the reason why choice made; and which the
Editors of that paper pleased to insert edltoT
aUy That statement did not pretend to give all the
particulars of the proceedings but as far as it went
he believed, and still believes it was substantially
correct. Yet Mr. Cooke pronounces it 4" an entire
misrepresentation OF facts
lst He saws " it is not true that the votes of tic
proxies asccrtaned ty tie cOnanutse" The
statement in the Standard does not say 1t only
SAYS it was ascertained" &C., meaning, of course
discovered by Mr.. Cooke, and it is presumed he will
hardly have the har,hood to deny that fact.
ID. He says at is not true that single friend
only of the Undersigned W. d. Cooked objected to
the reception of proxies Here again the statement
is misrepresentation the statement simply says, "a /.
friend of Mr. Cooke objected to receiviH5 proxies!
Was tbs true the letter? The statement did !
not purport nor pretend to give the proceedings Ola
the objection. 1t sudiOusly avoided doing 50 be- /!
it believed the particulars would have pre-
scented Mr. Cooke in the indecatc position, .
member Of the Committee, OF h0d;ing xDaech, Gn@ ,
cotiDg IN IA ,chich he 1cas himScJ personally
interested, in J0r13a l1ere hts "competit0r htd
no r0icc-hO r0tc;: and "'ir. Lenay had no wish OF
motive to expose him Enough was stated, it !
believed, to shew the public why the vote on the
main qitc>.ion-thc adoption of an or2an--Was not
taken and that all that Was desired. But there !
is thing under this head, stated b. Vi. Cooke, |
which is doubted, that minority OF those present !
voted against the reception of proxies as H"lre
;c0Chte0 and uatcurFdn;cd. - Mr. Lcmay WIS m /
formed that there were only seven members present J
ia person that Of them declined voting tie
question of reception that no formal vote taken
on one branch of the question and that only three !
Of the voted against the reception, of whom
/C/,to n that
finished state Of the question, the friends of the !
Arator agreed to postponcment of the matter"
If there be any inaccuracy this it cannot be mate
al, but the Editor of the Arator will be glad have
corSccted by official account OF the proceedings.
The statement of Mr.. Cook, in this connection that
the -1r0tor had not made its appearance untI the
tag Of the ancetlng is not true, but doubt very
nRoc6nt mistake. That paper was dated the end
APRIL 1t Is true (thc LIST being Sunday,) but num-
'er of copies had been sent out the week previous
>. Again: MIR. Cooke says, it is not true that the
tends of Mr.. Lcmay 1Eadc a concession, &c No
ody said they made concession" He continues,
they were in a minority, and it was a concession !
the other side, when the latter agreed not to post
one the matter indcfnitely" This is of piece with
lr. Cookies other equiyocations. "Min0Tity" on
What? The evident intention is to produce the i'm
ression that the minority" embraces the whole
natter, organ and all. Can it be possible that this
true in any sense? Let Of course
he direct qHestion cf eoc6 QJ oryan the Committee
Toud not allow Mr. Cooke to perpetrate the rank
cen able to vote for himself lie did the incl
entail question of reception. If, then, only three,
including himself voted against proxies, and If they
rcrc all, is believed, who desired to have his pa
er adopted, how would the vote have stood? Why,
or the " Cutvator,' teco and that not certain for
is said one of the gentlemen who voted against
roXics, also made earnest speech against ADAPT
og any organ at aLl qreudiciuE TO the interests
+ the State Agricultural Society, and expressed
determination to resist it 6 to the DEATH" And even
1r. Cooke, who being member of the committee,
f course " knows more about the matter than Mr..
,emay" tells the world that he is getting to be that
ray of thinking-aye, that even he, hmseIt, though
that late day, " took the ground that the true
interests of the Society demanded that neither
toulI6 be a0optedF' This g concession" eve
y body will admit. But it is altogether after
Onsiderdtion. 1t is indeed amusing to a
ecognition which would give his paper decided
dvantage over its competitor" and having signal
failed to compass his object then turn round wipe
is chops, and say, WALL rally think the interests
the Society demand that neither paper should be
dopted" The hidaous deformty of the motive
7hich lies at the bottom of this be concealed
y the thin veil which he attempts to throw over it.
he hypocrcal pretext that, after the publication
the first number of the ''Cultivator ;" he learned
-om the card of the Editor of the Arator that he
ad been urged to the publication of paper by
lembers of the Society, and of the Executive Com
littee, can avail him nothing. He knew it well
rior to both events. He knew the Arator would be
ublished: the prospectus had been sent to him. and
new at least one of the Executive Committee had
lodged his support and influence to the Arator, FIR
efore the first number of the Cultivator was is
ue1, he was told frankly by that member of the