The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1897-06-08
GOV. RUSSELL TO AN EDITOR.

The State Executive Gives the News
paper Man Some Informatiou--And
Then the Newspaper Keeps Mum.
|. Some weeks ago the North Carolina
Christian Advocate commented on the
''99 year lease" in such a manner as to
indicate that that paper leaned to the
position of the Southern Railway on
the lease question. Governor Russell
saw the comment and then wrote the
editor a letter with a request that he
would publish it. Nothing vas heard
from the editor for some days. After
a lapse of time he was asked about the
Governors letter. His reply, in sub
stance, was that it had not been pub
lished because it was not the policy of
the paper to deal with such matters as
the letter referred to. This was a pecu-
liar reply-a reply Of course which
the editor of the Advocate had a per
feet right to make-but nevertheless
peculiar; for the paper assumed the
right to IDEAL with such matters"
when it advocated the claims of a big
monopoly, but could not assume that
right when a presentation of facts un-
favorable to the monopoly was in
volved. The Governors letter was as
follows:
RALEIGH, March 90, 1892.
To the Editor of the North Carolina
Christian Advocate, Greensboro,
N. c.:
DEAR SIR:-When a paper like yours,
representing a high moral standard
takes a position against the material in
terests Of the State and puts it's oppo
sition on moral grounds, lam disposed
to ask that you listen to a reply in be-
half of the people of the State. The
substance Of your contention is that the
State like an individual, owns most of
the North Carolina Railroad and that
the State leased it to the Southern, and
having done SO it has no right now to
say that it has made a bad bargain
and seek to annul the contract.
l. COX OOdG III A4AuO UA6J GU6 OGAJO
did not make any contract with the
Southern Railroad; the contract of the
lease was made by the North Carolina
Railroad Company. But it is true that
the State stock was voted for the lease.
The State can only act through agents.
Now the State contends that it's agents
and the Southern were guilty of frdud
in this transaction, that it's agents acted
negligently and wantonly in perform,
ing their trust, that they permitted
themselves to be grossly imposed upon
by Misrepresentation and false pre-
lenses Of the Southern Railroad Com,
pany; that they made a contract which
was void in law because it was not au-
thorized 6y their principal, the State
that they exceeded the delegation of
power intrusted to them by their prin-
cipal, the State and made an alienation
of it's property without its authority.
Now, all that the State asks is that it
shall be permitted to make these allie
cations in its own courts and to join an
issue with the Southern Railroad Com
pany to be tried and determined just
like any ordinary controversy between
ordinary persons. This is ali that the
State is asking and this is just what
the Southern Railroad Company is try
ing to prevent.
Now, will you please put yourself in
the position of the State. Suppose
yourself to be the owner of a piece of
property and that you had delegated
to an agent authority to manage it,
but no authority to sell it; and that
without your authority this agent does
sell it and sells it secretly, and keeps
off bidders and is guilty of questionable
and apparently fraudulent conduct in
making the sale and negligently sui
fers himself to be imposed upon by the