The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1900-11-22
TOTES, SAWLOGS, THRESHING
nACHlNES AND OTHER THINGS

T1AS6tNES AND TEX lI1iSuS-
Our best beloved contemporary.
the Henderson GOLD LEAF, remarks:
Since Messrs Carr and Simmons and
Messrs Foushee and Busbee have eX-
changed kindly greetings and gracefully
accepted the situation, Mr.. james ).
Manning. Webster's Weekly, Greensboro
telegram and few Others ought at least
to acquiesce and let up about the ma
chine, charging methods OF unfalrness,
dishonesty and corruption.
And we remark that, as OF old,
there are people going about looking
for notes in their neighbours eyes
who carry whole saw mills in their
own. If any one will take the trouble
to look al the page OF the Henderson
GOLD LEAF from which the above
squib was taken he will find that 1t
contains between fifteen and twenty
editorial jabs, more or less nagglng
at the defeated side. The Telegram
remarked in substance, the day after
the election, that the party organiza-
ton was unfairly used in Mr.. Sim
mons behalf Since then it has said
nathing, except one time, when asked
a question. 1t never accused dishon-
esty or corruption. 1t charged un-
fairness, and one OF Mr.. Simmons
prominent supporters has since prac-
ticallv admitted the charge over his
own signature. In this connection
We would take occasion to say that
what we said was in a general way OF
conditions over the State.
I'm rfh 70
over the matter. We have said so
much for the benefit of our esteemed
but noisy contemporary, the GOLD
LEAF, and incidentally those who
have misconstrued our position.
The above is taken from our usually
mild hammered contemporary, the
Green boro Telegram. Immediately
after the election commenting on the
defeat of Gen, Carr, that paper used
this language:
But that defeat was accomplished
by the machinery Of the party he had
fought to sustain and build up in
season and out of season.
The GOLD LEAF felt at the time
that this was an uncalled for remark
and charge which could not be sub
Stimulated by the facts. However,
the statement was allowed TO pass un
challenged at the time and no atten-
ton would have been paid to it but
for subsequent events.
| Mr.. L. T. Brooks did take the Teie-
gram TO task though, and in reply to
a request that it tell how that thing
was ''accomplished,' in what way and
by whom, being asked to name the
men and the special way in which
they worked it, the Telegram said:
I'VE hope our remarks were not
| construed as an intended reflection on
anybody who voted for Mr.. Simmons,
rs that was not intended. We simply
meant that he and his .ubordinates
took advantage of their official posi-
ton to work in his behalf"
Then it proceeds to make matters
worse, by declaring that
LAS for the naming Of the men,
that would require the enumeration
Of about all the chairmen in the State. y
And as if that were not enough it
quotes approvingly from Webster's
Weekly and Mr.. James S. Manning in
proof of its charge. Notwithstanding
it. avowal that
For our part we are willing to let
the matter drop. If Mr.. Carr has no
kick it is quite certain that we shall
not have"
The Telegram says it never ac-
cused dishonesty or corruption. But
itquoted, with evident approval, the
language of Mr. James s. Manning in
it's extract from WeJstcr's Weekly, and
if dishonesty and corruption are not
charged therein, we fail to correctly
interpret that gentlemans meaning.
Now ut the risk of being still more
"noisv' we ask the Telegram in all
Justice and fairness if it would con-
denim q common street dog in gen
eral way" Is it honest and honor
able, to denounce gentlemen in gilt.
tering generalities9 We think not
Then let it make out its case in spe-
citic terms, letting the accuse zion rest
where it belongs. or let it forever
hereafter hold it's peace.