Daily tobacco leaf-chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1890-1895, 1890-04-19

one letter mentions the Gracey
Warehouse, and that one did not
have a complaint against Smith &
Anderson on account of the delivery
of frosted in place of good tobacco,
nor on account of the atrocious char
acter of their claims, but on account
of the large number of claims on
one particular purchase.
AS an evidence of the light in
which Messrs. Smith d Anderson
were regarded by the Board in con-
nectioh with the investigation of
the fraudulent practices then under
consideration, we would state that
Mr.. j. H. Smith (of the firm of
Smith & Anderson) was a member of
the Investigation Committe, elected
by the Tobacco Board of Trade, to
investigate the fraudulent and cor
rupt practices then under considera-
ton, and this would not have been
the case if the Board had suspected
his firm Smith & Anderson) of be-
ing guilty of any of the fraudulent
and corrupt practices that the Board
was trying to trace to their source.
Mr.. Warfeld says: 1--WE assert
that those minutes will prove that
Smith d Anderson were b0ycotted."
And further on he favors us with a
definition of "bsycott" as follows :
"An English word expressing exclu-
sion fro n social or business inter-
course. 1t signifies also, intimida-
ton by threatening to exclude from
such intercourse.
We do not think that Mr.. Warfield
will deny that when he first used the
term "bycott" in reference to Messrs.
Smith d Anderson, he used it in the
sense of the first clause of the defini-
ton, but we have examined the
minutes carefully with reference to
both clauses of the definition.
We find that there is not a word in
the minutes indicating that Messrs.
Smith q Anderson or the Gracey
warehouse were ever excluded from
social or business intercourse. We
find threats against the mar
ket, but there are none against
Messrs. Smith & Anderson as
firm, nor against the Gracey
warehouse. And there is nothing in
the minutes indicating that Messrs.
Smith & Anderson were ever intimi-
dated by any of the threats against
the market. So, as they were not
excluded from social or business in
tercourse, and were not intimidated,
the charges made by Mr.. War
field-that they were boycotted and
that the minutes of this board will
show it-are distinctly and emphati-
cally untrue.
In conclusion, Mr.. President, we
think it would be well to remind Mr..
Warfield that he has wandered entirelu
array from his original statement, on
which Messrs. Smith & Anderson
took issue with him.
He stated in very emphatic terms
that Messrs. Smith g. Anderson had
been boycotted by the Bremen buyers
and that he had documents in his
possession that would prove it. Let
him stand or fall by his original
statement that started this contro-
versy. Let him prove the charge by
the documents that he said that he
had in his possession-for if he has
them, no doubt he can control them
for publication-and not seek to shell
ter himself behind an appeal for the
publication of the private records OF
this Tobacco Board of Trade, which
he knows that he cannot procure
for publication but which he also
knows, for purposes of examination
and information, are at all times ac-
cessible to himself, to any officer or
member of his warehouse company,
and in fact to any member of this
Tobacco Board OF Trade. If it is
really and only as proof of mis- charge
that he wishes to lay before the pub
lie the private records of this Tobac-
co Board of Trade, it should be suffi-
cient for his purpose to publish the
proof that he claimed to have in his
possession.
AS Mr.. WarfieId has made publ
cation of incorrect statements and
unjust and delusive insinuations rel
alive to the records in the minutes of
this Tobacco Board of Trade, we rec
Ommend that the board order the
publication of this report in the
GAINESVILLE paper having the largest
circulation.
Respectfully submitted,
(Signed) VIM. F. DoHRMANN.
d. KoHLER,
c.. ED. WARNEKEN,
E. M. FLACK,
LEWIS r. CLARK, chm.
This report was accepted by the
Board and ordered printed.
A true copy.
M. H. CLARK, Secretary.