The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1901-10-10

The CAUCASIAN, Of Raleigh, b
still declaring, with 'sdamnable tier
aiion," that certain persons and the
% per- declared In 1898 thst II the |
ID mocratic party was entrusted
" q. h the government Of the State II
would propose no legislation having
In view the Acknowledgement Of any
man, but II has never had the man
illness to retract its original deciars-
ton that the Democratic State Con-
vention made such pledge. 1t had
asserted that the convention did.
The Observer denied this and called
for the evidence. The CAUCAsIAN
could not furnish 1t and retorts that
some other persons and powers had
done 50. But that IL not the point.
The assertion was that the conven-
lion had. 1t had not, and the eau
cAsIAN should have the manlinsss
TO withdraw the assertion. But 1t
hasn't, but instead seeks to shift the
ground Of debate. So much the
worse for 1t. We had no reason TO
prosecute discussion with 30 uncan
did q foe.
We were under the impression that
we did admit-and If we did not we
admit 1t now-that the CAUCAsIAN
was technically mistaken In saying
that the pledge made by the Demo
cratic party to the effect that If 1t
secured control in the State 1t would
not attempt to disfranchise any man,
was made in the State platform, but
at the same time, we said the es-
,snce of the charge was that the
Democratic party had broken Its
pledge, and we continued to main
tain that this was true, because, while
the pledge was not made in the
platform, 1t was made by the party
and its organization in every other
possible way that It could be made
and as positively as it could be made.
We then called upon the Charlotte
Observer to say whether or not the
party was pledged when the party
orgs nization made the pledge in its
official handbook, when the chair
man of the Democratic State Com.
mittee issued an official address reit-
Grating the pledge, which address
was published with approval In
nearly all, If not every, Democratic
paper in the State, when every
speaker for the party was called
upon to reiterate the pledge from
the stump, and when nearly every
Democratic newspaper in the State
editorially made the same pledge
Did or did not this commit the
party? In reply to this editorial ir
the CAUCASIAN the Charlotte Oh
server simply said that thu
caucasian was mistaken in charg
ing that the pledge was in the plat
form, and that, therefore, there wa
no further controversy about tn,
matter. It was in answer to thi,
statement of the Charlotte Observes
, that the CAUCASIAN reiterated
, it's statements (which iteraior
seems to be "damable tier
alton" to the Charlotte Obser
ver) and called upon the Obser
: yer to say whether or not, In it
, judgment, Mr.. Simmons, Democra
tic State Committee, Democratic
speakers, and the Democratic paper
which had made these pledges wer
r to be held responsible, and whethe
! or not these parties had not broker
their pledges. Again we had tn
temerity to ask the Charlotte Obsel
! yer if there was any way by which
g q party could make its pledge excep
o through the State platform, and,
/, 80, in what way it could be mad
!, stronger than in the way tho Dem
D ocntic party had made its pledges
:. It is this last editorial Of our
4 which put the Observer in q clos
= corner, which has caused it to los
o its equanimity, and, hence the petr
lent and ill-tempered editorial "
quote is full above.
Il The Observer it seems was afrai
= it would be read out of the party b
Mr.. Joe Daniels and Company. ]
3 it admitted what 1t knew was th
o truth, and as there was no argumen
Is or line of reason by which it coul
- dodge admitting the truth in answe
:. to our question, there were but tw
y courses for that paper to pursue
}. one to keep silent and the other t
show i'll temper.
All we have to say in conclusio
e Is that the Charlotte Observer hs
> practically admitted our charge, bu
J. was not candid enough to say 80 in
Il straightforward manner.
VI DAZZLES THE WORLD.
% No discovery in medicine has eve
q created one-quarter of the excitemeI