The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1890-06-05
THE EDITORS CHAIR.
HOW THINGS LOOK FROM
OUR STAND POINT.
The Opinion Of The Editor and the
Opinion OF Others which we
Can Endorse on the Various
Topics of the Day.
AN ANSWER TO "K."

Two weeks ago a certain railroad
attorney under the "nom de plume'
Of ''K' took a clipping from the
Wilson Advance that appeared in
this paper, for pretcxt to appear
in type on the Railroad Commission
question. He claimed that the ar
ticle referred to left the impression
that a commission could levy Il tax
on railroads, and he labOred through
nearly two columns, quoting from
the State Constitution and the L. S.
Supreme Court reports, wasting his
time and our space trying to prove
what was already known and what
no one had ever doubted. 1t is need
less for us to repeat, the article had
no such meaning. Our readers knew
it had no such meaning and OK"
himself, and every other reasonable
person knew it had no such meaning
That kind of argument will do rn Il
log, but it will not do in a newspaper.
Then, did az" willfully miscOnstrue
the meaning Ofthat article simply to
force the press to give him a hear
ing to defend himself? No. Be
cause over a year ago, wishing to see
every one have fair play and a hear
ing before the public, we offered the
gentleman. who calls himself ok, :"
space in our columns land the offer
has stood open ever since) in which
to defend himself and his action on
the Railroad Commission. In fact
many farmers requested him to do
SO through these columns. Our offer
he did not ACCEPT and their request
he did ignore. Then why does he
take this tlimsy excuse to say some
thing to the public not pertinent to
the question? Because, by doing
SO, he does not stand as one defend
ing his own record, but merely AS
criticiZer of, what he would make to
appear to be, our ignorance. This is
sOphistry, which not only does us
injustice, but is also intended to
mislead the public. In our answer
to "Kn of two weeks since, we ask
ed him two questions. In this
weeks issue he answers by quoting
section 1866 of the Code, with refer
ence to a certain kind Of discrimina-
ton, a decision Of the Supreme Court
under that section. But that is no
an answer. Does ok" suppose thai
our readers and OurSelf were ignO,
rant Of the existence of that statute:
Does he suppose that the farmers OF
| North Carolina were ignorant OF il
when they asked for a commission
1t is true that they might have beer
ignorant of it rs for what good il
has done them. The law is a failure
and that is why the farmers asked
for commission. Yes, the law
stands on the statute books, yet il
will cost more to have a certain
quantity of freight shipped from
Wilmington to Clinton, than it viii
to ship the same freight from Vii
mington to Fayetteville, about three
times the distance.
We asked can railroads discrimi
nate? "K" says no. We say they
do, and we challenge him to disprov,
the fact. A commission would stant
as vigilance committee not only t
see that the law was executed anC
that there was no discrimination
but also to report charges that were
too high.
If Mr.. OK" wishes to answer an
other question, he can tell our read
ers what profits his railroads max,
from the charges they now impose
And we hope he will not use subti
fuges, but come directly to tn
point.