The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1893-05-02
OFFICIAL.
President Loucks Replies to Recent Ut
terances in the Economist and
Again Declares that it is no

Longer an Organ of the
National Alliance.
I had hoped to avoid any personal
controversy during my term Of Office,
believing that the advocacy of our
principles was of much greater impor-
tance than the calling of hard names.
But the course being pursued by DIR.
Macune. in the National Economist,
demands an answer. Silence might be
misconstrued. I regret exceedingly
that n man who has been so highly
honored in u ranks could so far for
get our teachings as to issue such a It's
sue of unfair, misleading, and untrue
statements as he has been guilty of in
the Economist of Marth 1926, and
April l. l can only account for it on
the hypothesis that when he withdrew
from the Alliance he thought it was no
longer obligatory on him to ''speak the
truth" In the issue of March 18th, he
takes the position that the executive
committee had no right to sever the
official connection with the Economist.
He tries to explain away the specific
instructions given us at Memphis.
which was to examine and find whether
there vas any legal obligation binding
us to continue it as our official organ.
1t had forfeited the confidence of the
order by its gross betrayal previous to
the late election, and it was almost the
unanimous desire to sever the connec,
ton. All the executive committee had
to 90 was to investigate and find if we
were legally bound. We searched dill
igently and could find neither contract
or bond. The Decor says:
For the committee to now pretend
that they have lost the contract or seek
to make the Economist suffer for their
dereliction, if they or their p~redeces-
sors, have lost the contract is folly.
That is rich, even for the doctor.
"FOr the committee to noU pretend
that they haze lost the contract, etc."
To realize the situation fully, it must
be remembered that the doctor was
the chairman Of the old executive com
mittee, in whose custody all such pa
pers should be. That when he was
asked for the papers by me, on Feb.
10Th, he replies: In reply will say,
that neither of these documents ever
came into my hands while holding that
office, nor before or since" To try to
throw the responsibility for this loss on
the present board is ridiculous indeed.
More, on Bro. Folks decease Mr.. Ma
cune took possession of all of Bro.
Folks papers and effects in the Presi-
dents Office, and if any bond or con
tract was lost in the transfer, he is per-
sonally responsible. Strange, is it not,
that in a matter of such vital impor-
lance to the Economist that they
should not have a copyof the contracts
The fact is, in my opinion, there never
was such a contract. It has been q
gross imposition on the order topretend
there was. The understanding was.
that they were not to increase the
stock to more than SO, 900; they have
issued $44, 900, mostly water. They
were to sell the plant to the Alliance
at any time for the cash value Of the
plant. Macune now claims it was to
be for the face of the inflated stock. 1t
was foreman in the hands of Alliance
men. Of the $44, 900 at which it is now
stocked, all that remains in the hands
of Alliancemen is about 81, 900, repre-
sentlng what Bros. Terrell and Krebs
owns. We have enough circumstan-
tial evidence to convince us that the
National Democratic Committee.
through Horace Kenny, owns a ma
jority Of the stock. These were reasons
sufficient to cause us to sever the con-
n%eetion, even if the Supreme Council
had not instructed us to do so. It had
grossly betrayed US previous to cleo
ton, by inserting a supplement in the
interest of the Democratic party.
which was sent to a selected list where
it would do the most good for the
Democratic party. He denies ever hav-
ing seen it until it was sent him by an
Allianceman, enquiring what it meant. I
The document carries the doctors ear
marks all the way through. I believe
that it was written by him. The l
reasons he gave for publishing it was:
First-To let the brethren know be- |
fore the annual session the treacherv s
going on, and that November 5th, was t
the last issue before the session. Quite
a mistake, there was another, five days
before, viz, Nov. 18th. But Nov. 9Th t
1cas the last before election, and therein 1
Is the milk of that cocoanut. If it were q
important for the brethren To know q