The Durham recorder. [volume] (Durham, N.C.) 1879-19??, 1891-07-01
THEIR EXPLANATION.
STATEMENT FROM 4 IE DUR
HAM FlGRTILiZEls COM
PANY.
Al Full and Frank Statement 81
Facts Concerning Recent
Transs ctiOns

Facts Concerning Recent
Transactions
DURHAM, N. c., June 23. TO
THE PUBLIC. Men who follow
other business pursuits natur-
ally shrink from engaging in
newspaper wrangles, and the
necessity therefore is our only
excuse for this card. 1t is not
every alse accusation that we
would notice in that way; but
the charge Of FRAUD made by
certain newspapers against the
Durham Fertilizer Company, as
it has a tendency TO unfavor-
ably affect the business Of the
Company and also the reputa-
tion of the several gentlemen
with whom we are associated in
the management Of the business,
we cannot under the circum-
stances permit the charge to go
unchallenged.
We believe that most of the
editors of acknowledgements
who have published this charge
did so in good faith, however
much they may have subjected
themselves TO just criticism for
allowing their papers TO be used
in the interest OF rival manu-
facturers in their attempts to
iniure the business of our own
company. We offer them, how
ever, a test Of their good faith
to be subjected to the analysis
Of public opinion by presenting
to them the facts in the follow
ing statement with the oppor-
tunity to publish them if they
really want to do no injustice
but merely to serve, as they
claim, the interests Of the public.
Now for the facts: On the
2Gth day Of May, 1891, the Dur,
hamFertilizer Company shipped
BY the r. a ID. Railroad to Me-
baneville, N. c., three car loads
of fertilizer, one to w. b. Sell
lars, Business Agent Of Pleas
ant Grove Alliance, No, 1858,
of Alamance county, and the
other two car loads To j II.
smith, Business Agent Of Ridge
vile Alliance No 7S4, of Cas-.
well county Mr.. Smith was in
Durham at the Office of the Com
pany on that very day, and per-
sonally urging the company to
ship the goods as the season
was growing late, and the far
ners wanted the goods at once.
We had been buying tax-paid
tags from the department in
Raleigh from time 70 time, and
supposed we had enough tags
for this which was about our
last shipment, and did not dis
cover a deficiency Of tags until
we began TO load the cars on
the evening of the 26th Of Nay.
We at once, on finding out that
we did not have on handenough
tags for all the goods in these
shipments, wrote the depart
ment on the next day (27th Nay
enclosing our check of that date
for the amount necessary. Our
letter and check did not reach
the department at Raleigh un-
til the next day, Thursday,
May 2Sthl after the goods had
left Durham, and we received
the tags by express on the morn
ing Of May 29th friday and on
the evening of May 18th, we
gave the tags TO the agent Of
| Ithe Richmond and DanvilIe
Railroad Co. at Durham, to be
sent TO the railroad agent at
Mebaneville to tag the bags at
Mcbaneyille. On the next day
being informed that the tags
lgiyen the agent were not sutli-
lcient, we sent more and all this
occurred before we had intima.
Ition Of any sort that the goods
lhad been detained for want OF
ltags, or that anybody intended
Ito detain them. Our first off,
IcIal information Of the deten.
Ition Of the goods was ON Mon.
lday, June lst, when an oflicial
Ilet.er came from Mr.. Robinson,
Commissioner. IL is not pre-
TENDED by anybody, but that
only d part uf these goods lack,
ed tags when they left Durham
| uld 10 she charge that the good.
were 20 packed in the cars tha'
in opening the car doors th,
tagged bags only would be seeI
and the untagged bags wor,
concealed in the rear ends o
the cars, we assert il Is not tru,
and In corroboration we quot,
from d letter received by us from
lMr. J. X. Smith. He writes
III will also state that the ~
Iport that the sacks in front 81
the doors in the car were tagge,
and those at the bottom and d
1.-THE rear ends were not tagged i
FALSE. He further says h,
was present when the cars wer