The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1899-07-11
EDITORIAL NOTES.

you decide to send elsewhere.
The trust is in hot pursuit OF ye
editor. The paper trust, the ink trust,
and type trust are calling on him to
paw tribute. We therefore trust that
those whom we have trusted will pay
I'D promptly. Other wise the trusts
may not trust us.
The editor expects to attend the
meeting of the State Press Association
at Carolina Beach this week, and will,
as the editor of the Henderson Gold
Leaf puts it, 'leave the editorial block
at home and let the next issue take
chances of being bstter that usual and
coming out ahead Of time"
An item from the Lincoln Journal,
stating that under an act Of the les
legislature farmers selling fresh meats
are required to pay an annual license
tax of Sc, is going the rounds of the
press end appeared in Jul State News
department some weeks ago. We learn
that in this statement the Journal is
in error. The Revenue act does i'm
pose taxes ranging from So to 81 so
upon dealers in fresh meats, but a
proviso attached adds that nothing
in this section shall apply to farmers
vending their own products and with
out a regular place of business"
Our crusade against the American
Cotton Company has aroused the farm
ers Of the State and now the cglindri-
cal bale is almost as friendless as the
famous Jackson Limbless Cotton be
came after we exposed it a year ago.
A few weeks ago we we're practically
alone in our fight against the cylindri
cal bale, but now most Of the papers
which accepted the American Cotton
Oompany's sharp advertising PROPOSE
ton, have discontinued the publication
of the ready made editorials and have
joined US in opposing the cylindrical
trust. And while the lamp holds out
to burn the vilest sinner may return"
We are glad of your help, gentlemen,
even though you came in at the
eleventh hour.
We learn from a Wilmington dis
patch July III, that L W. Bath, q
horse dealer Of that city, has instituted
suit for damages against the publishers
of the Morning Star on punt Of an
article that appeared in the paper the
previous morning.. In a report of an
embeZzlement case the name Of L w.
Bath appeared as defendant instead of
L. W. Carter, who is also a horse
dealer of that city. Bath Gays he will
claim damages not less than five thou
sand dollars. Yet the error in the
Ssar was an oversight of the proof
rection in its next issue, ~apologizing
for the mistake. Only a few months
ago a Durham editor got into trouble
in the same manner The States libel
la VS. should be changed so as to make
CORE etions and explanations more
Weighty than at present.
In our issue of last week We gave an
article from the pen of Mr.. J. w. Las
sitter, in which he took US and one of
our correspondence to task for certain
illusions to DR.. Kilgo. 1t will be no
ticed that Mr.. Lassiter's case rests en-.
tirely upon but two points. In the
first place, he thinks Dr.. Kilgo did not
intend to defend oppressive trusts and
monopolies. In this we would be glad
to believe Mr.. Lsssiter right, but to US
it is clear that the general trend of Dr..
Kilgo's entire speech fatty and clearly
contradicts this view. We believe
that every one who reads the entire
speech will agree with US in this. Dr..
KIlgo excused the extortion of trusts
by saying it is the operation Of the
by divine talent to accumulate" and
also went out Of his way 10 sneer at
labor organizations. What better de
Tense doSs a trust wants Mr.. Lsssiter's
second point is that we attacked DR.,
Kilgo because Of his attitude toward
state aid to higher education. Let US
say once for ell, with all due respect to
Bro Lassiter, that such statements are
without the slightest shadow Of fOun
dation. On the other hand we have to
a certain degree admired Dr.. Kllgo's
mastery pleas for what he calls Chris
tian education. 1t was in no spirit of
irreverence hat our editorial vas
written, but for the purpose Of show
ing that in his oaccalaureate address at
least, DR.. Kilgo advocated a form Of
education which to US seems anything
but Christian.