The leader. [volume] (Brookhaven, Miss.) 1895-1905, 1895-09-24
SUMMERS BROS. AGAIN.

lOuk AZ thC soot Acotc
of the Lincoln County Times, purport-
ing to be an answer to an editorial in
The LEADER of Sept. 10th. Analysed,
this communication is a., an effort to
justify the erroneous and offensive
construction previously placed upon a
paragraph in The LEADER of August
9th; o., to prove that the real animus
of the paragraph was founded on per-
sonal or partisan feeling on the part
of the editor toward one of the Sum-
mers' Bros; (3), to convict the editor
of The LEADER of political inconsist-
ency; and a., to show that this broth
er, Mr.. A. M. Summers, has never look
ed with favor upon the Prohibition
party and platform, or been disloyal to
the Democracy, though he voted for
the Prohibition candidate for Presi-
dent in 1892.
AS to the first point, we do not care
to add anything to what was said in
The LEADER of Sept. 10th, nor is 1T at
all necessary; but as new matter has
been injected into the controversy by
the last three, we will endeavor to an
swer each as its merits deserve.
To establish the notion of animus,
private and business correspondent
ence and even misquoted private con-
versation, with questionable proprie-
ty, are logged in, and on the frail by
pothesis thus built, the erroneous con-
clusion is drawn. Now, it is true, as
Summers Bros. assert, that early in
1894, the editor of THE LEADER wrote
Mr.. A. M. Summers letter requesting
him to attend a meeting in the Spring
of 1894 to assist in organizing the Pro-
hibition party, and that we subsequent
ly sought a personal interview with
him. This was done because we re-
garded Mr.. Summers as one of the rep
resentative Prohibitionists and citi
zens of the county, and also because
he had voluntarily written to us in
1892, repudiating the Democratic par
ty as whisky party. In the private
interview referred to, language is put
in the mouth of the editor of The
LEADER and Mr.. Summers both, which
neither used. 1t is true, that, encour-
aged by the stand Mr.. Summers had
taken in 1892, we requested him to
unite with us and others in organizing
the Prohibition party, with view to
putting out candidates, but that he
was offered any place on the ticket he
might choose as an inducement to do
so, is entirely overstating it. That
would not only have been the most ar
rant presumption on our part, but dis
playing the "pie counter" on the front
gallery as temptation to recruits, is
a policy which would prove suicidal to
any reform party, and is one the Pro-
hibition party has scrupulously avoid
ed. Neither is it correct, as alleged,
that Mr.. Summers based his objection
to such movement on anything in the
Prohibition platform or preference
for the Democratic platform. The
chief objection raised 10y Mr.. Summers
was the one he especially emphasized
in letter replying to our invitation to
attend the meeting, and it was identi-
cally the reason that kept him from
receiving the nomination for Sheriff in
the late Democratic primary, towit ::
That there we're not UOtes enough to
elect
If Summers Bros" call in question
what is above stated, we request Mr..
A. NJ. Summers to authorize us to pub
lish the letters referred to and let
them speak for themselves.
After the interview above referred
to land which, by the way, occurred
last year,, Summers Bros. communica-
ton goes on to say Mr.. A. NJ. Summers
"became a candidate for
Sheriff and paid The LEADER to an,
nounce his name. And with two or
three slight illusions to him by The
LEADER as sympathizing with the Pro
hibition party the Democratic primary
passed. The LEADER editor said: Now
you have failed in the Democratic par
ty and sustained an injury that you
cannot we'll afford to endure but the
reply was, Il am nevertheless Demo
crat.' Following this came a dun from
the editor for years subscription to
THE LEADER, small portion of which
was already due. The apology for the
dun was, we are SO very much Cypress
ed for money under the present ad
ministration' Following this came
the innocent paragraph which appear
ed in THE LEADER of Aug. 9th"
Now to illustrate how misleading the
above statements are, let us give few
facts.
III After Mr.. Summers announced
as a candidate for Sheriff, The LEADER
never referred to him editorially but
once, and then it made no reference to
his being sin sympathy with the Pro-
hibition party" but complimented
him, as it could conscientiously do, on
his merits as man and citizen.
(2) No such conversation as is quot
ed, occurred between Mr.. Summers
and the editor of The LEADER after he
was defeated for Sheriff, for this very
important reason, if no other, viz: The
editor of THE LEADER never so much
as saw Mr.. A. Nj. Summers, let alone