Daily tobacco leaf-chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1890-1895, 1890-04-30
TO THE PUBLIC.

to take under consideration, and to
make such reply as might appear
necessary and proper, to the pro-
ceedings of the GAINESVILLE Tobacco
Board of Trade, published in the
TOBACCO LEAF-CHRONICLE of the
odd inst.
In compliance with our duty, we
beg to say that we deprecate the fact
that the Board of Trade should have
thought it necessary to take sides
with one of its members against an
other in the matter of private con-
troversy. This committee does not
desire any controversy with the
Board OF Trade, and, therefore, re-
trains from discussing the merits of
that controversy. But in common
fairness and justice to Mr.. Wartield,
we earnestly desire an appeal from
the verdict of necessarily impair
tial board, to that of an impartial
public, upon the same evidence they
had before them.
The resolution of the Board of
Trade provided that a committee of
five members, of Mr.. Warfield's own
selection, should be appointed, for the
purpose Of examining the minutes and
determining whether they sustain
Mr.. Warfield in the charges he had
made. This resolution seems alto
gether favorable to Warfield, on its
lace, but we must meet these
questions with candor, and to do this
we will have to go deeper than the
surface.
Every one knows, and no one bet
ter than the members of the Board
of Trade, that the buyers, who con-
stitute half the Board, were already
thoroughly committed in favor of
Smith x Anderson, by joining with
them in their circular declaring that
there was not seven a senahance Of
truth" on which to base Warfield's
charge. The other members of the
Board are warehousemen, which we
think the Board will agree are not
impartial judges, since it appointed
none of them on its Investigating
committee.
Upon the soundest principles of
justice, every man " no is put upon
trial is entitled to the deliberate
judgment of impartial judges, and
we believe, therefore, that all fair
minded men will agree with us that
the complaint of the Board that Mr..
Warfield declined to participate in
its proceedings is unjust to him.
Although the sole purpose of the
committee was to ''ecdmine the min
utes and determine whether they sus-
tain Mr.. Warfield in the charges that
he had made" it did not cOnfine itself
to that duty, At one time it confounds
itself with the buyers who had signed
Smith q Anderson's circular, and
says: eve (the cOmmitte p would
state that when we Che buyers p
signed that paper, we (the buyers p
did not notice what was evidently a
careless wording of Messrs. Smith q
Anderson's letter to the buyers" 1t
then states what the buyers had been
Uniformed" Warfield had said,
Though the same does not appear on
the "minutes," nor in either OF the
circulars) and what the buyers in
tended when (they signed Smith e.
Anderson circular though the buy
ers were entirely competent to speak
for themselves.) We mention this
for no other purpose than to show
the anomalous character of the court
by which Warfield was tried.
Again, it reminds Mr.. Warfield
"that he has wandered entirely from
his original statement, on which
Messrs. Smith & Anderson took issue
with him" to-wit: "That Messrs.
Smith & Anderson had been boy
cotted by the Bremen buyers, and
that he had documents in his posses
sion that would prove it," and adds
LET him prove the charge by the
documents that he said he had IN his
possession" We do not know whether
Warfeld claimed to have the evil
dence in his possession or not. 1t is
not so charged in the "minutes' the
committee was appointed to exam
inc, nor in Smith, Anderson &
Woods letter to the buyers, nor is it
admitted in Warfield's letter to the
public. But suppose it is true, it is
absurd to say the issue is whether
Warfield has in his possession evil
dence, and not Whether the charge itself
is trqte the shadow and not the sub
stance. The issue is whether the
charge itself is true, and whether
Warfield has the proof in his posses
sion, or reads it on the minutes of the
Board of Trade, is jmmateridl.
When Mr.. Warfield applied to the
Board for a copy of the minutes that
he claimed would substantiate his
charge, his request was promptly
denied, and in the proceedings Just
he is referred to as seek
ing to "shelter himself behind an
appeal for the publication of the pri- |
waite records of the Tobacco Board of
Trade, uhich he kn0acS he cannot procure
far publications"
But now, part of these same
"private records" are published for
the benefit of Smith & Anderson, and |
the Board undertakes to justify such |
by the statement that
Mr.. Warfield has made publication
of incorrect statements and unjust
and delusive insinuations relative to
the records in the minutes of this
Tobacco Board of Trade.
Mr.. Warfield is an upright, honor
able and truthful man, and these are
grave charges to be made
against him. In honor and fairness
Ihe Board is bound to substantiate
these charges by the best evidence in
It's possession. The best evidence of
what a record contains is The record H.
,df. Mr.. Warfield is being con-
lemned for undertaking to state
what this record contains. He is not
afraid to have the record published
side by side with his statement of its
contents. 1t seems to us that il is
lI,n u thn Rnn rl c,f urnl.. o.. Ill -