The leader. [volume] (Brookhaven, Miss.) 1895-1905, 1898-05-04
Judge POwell's First Critic.
CRYSTAL SPRINGS, April %, 1898.

Judge Powell's First Critic.
CRYSTAL SPRINGS, April %, 1898.
EDITOR LEADER Il have before me
a copy OF your paper of the 9th inst,
containing an editorial entitled "Reck-
less and Unjust Criticism"
The headand front of Judge Powell's
offending" quote from your article,
IL you will excuse me for saying so-is
not what you state. Nobody here OBJ
Jects to his doing his duty, and his
whole duty, but we object to his clash
ing the entire community as "perjur-
ers." 1t is true that he does not do
this in so many words, but he does it
by implication.
Allow me to quote again from your
article.
"The court charged that fragrant
perjury had been committed by some
of the forty odd witnesses and county
officers who had been before the jury
to testify"
l am one of those forty odd wit
nesses and feel that my honor as a gen.
tleman has been impugned. 1 do not
knowledge Powell personallyandify you
will allow me to add, am not craving
his acquaintance, but l do assert and
am prepared to maintain 1t, that the
learned gentleman had no right to
assail this community in the indis-
criminate manner he has done and with
the Incorporate language he has
thought proper to adopt.
| He has cast a slur upon Crystal
Springs that will take years to eradi-
cate, if it is ever accomplished. If he
is playing for political effect, as many
OF our people seem to think, he may
make capital elsewhere, but it will be
signal failure around here.
You may not be aware of the fact
that | was the first to criticise Judge
Powell, but my structures were highly
conservative and my language SO tenn
pered that no one could properly OBJ
Ject. l do not endorse the editorial of
the Copiah Signal any more than do
yours. You are both extremists where
conservatism is needed. 1t would be
we'll if you would both bear in mind
that old Latin adage: 'Bedtds IN nue.
dia res" and be governed accordingly.
F. Y. DABNEY.
Capt. Dabney in the above pro,
ceeds upon two errors or misappre
tensions, which he would hardly
have fallen into, if he had looked
at this whole matter as calmly and
dispassionately as one ON the out
side and not as one labOring under
tho false impression that his per-
sonal honor had been aspersed.
In the first place THE LEADERS
remarks about "the head and front
of Judge POwelps offending" were
used solely as applicable to the in.
cendiary attack of the Signal which
was the subject directly under con-
sideration, and which Capt. Dab
ney himself says he does not en-
dorse. The Signals article as.
sumes in general that the barba-
rous lynching of the negro Moses
was the right and proper thing,
under the circumstances, and that
it was a piece of Officious pre-
sumption in the court to call the
subject under review. If it doesn't
mean that it seems to us it doesn't
mean anything.
The second error Capt. Dabney
falls into is assuming that an i'm
putation has necessarily been cast
upon his personal honor, because
the court expressed the opinion
that "soMEBoDY" among the forty.
odd witnesses examined by the
jury had committed "cOld blOOded,
willful perjury" If Judge Powell
had singled out Capt. Dabney by
name as this somebody" or he
had declared that ALL of the forty
odd witnesses had committed per-
jury, then Capt. Dabney, if he
were innocent of the charge (as
The LEADER and doubtless Judge
Powell also freely cOncedes), would
have a right to kick; but
not as it is. In view of all the ad-
mitted facts and circumstances, to
assert that Judge Powell's charge,
as qualified, Over.shOt the mark, is
to discount common sense and
reason.
Yes, the editor of THE LEADER
was aware that Capt. Dabney was
"the first in printlto criticise Judge
Powell" and when we read his
communication in the Times-Dem-
ocrat, three or four things at once
occurred to us. One was that he
had made the mistake we have just
pointed out above; second was,
if Judge Powell knew so little
about who were good witnesses to
have summoned before the grand
jury and Capt. Dabney knew so
much, why was it, as good citizen,
anxious to see the majesty of the
law upheld, and the disgrace to his
town wiped out, he did not assist
the court IN the right direction,
instead of first standing aloof and
then resorting to adverse criticism
of its well-Eeant efforts; third, we
saw in his vain effort to sustain
this i'll advised criticism, he had
gonea way back to 1874 during the
heyday of carpet-bag rule and
negro dominion to institute a
comparison between a lynching in