The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-11-05
DR.. IVEY MARES REPLY.
To the Article of rr. Wood in The News and
Observer

To the Editor: In my reply to DR..
Woods article, which appeared in the
News and Observer of the 4th inst, 1
must express several regrets.
l regret that DR.. Wood labors to make
it appear that the editorial in the Adj
voate TO which he replies was political
in its character, and that l was writing
in the interest of any party. The most
unintclligenr reader can plainly see that
l was simply discussing a moral PROPOSE
tion, deeply affecting the moral life of
our people, and on which it seemed that
DR.. Wood had taken the wrong position
The editor of the Raleigh Christian Ad-
vccatc as a citizen is not ashamed to
say that he votes according to his CON
science, but that as editor he feels that
he has no right to inject into the col
umns of the paper which he edits, his
political views. Furthermore, he feels
that it is very unwise and ill-advised for
any minister of the gospel to write
political article for any secular paper
especially in the midst of warm cam
paign, though that letter be addressed to
a party chairman.
l regret that DR.. Wood thinks that my
l wrote in the kindest spirit. But DR..
Woods mistake on this point is due to
the general principle that when any one
is out of humor ne thinks that every one
else is in the same frame. To the one
who wears green spectacles, the whole
world seems green. So | cheerfully for
give the mistake.
l regret that DR.. Wood considers me
unfair in not publishing his whole arti-
Gle. / published all that he said bearing
on the point at issue.
l regert that DR.. Wood in making his
charge of unfairress, is so unfair him
self as to reply in the News and Obser-
yer to my editorial without quoting even
a single word Of that editorial. Here is
fairness with vengeance. 1t must be
remembered that in the whole matter the
News and Observer has published moth
ing but what came from Dr. Wood. My
readers may take the case on this point.
l regret that my readers do not have
the benefit of DIR. Woods whole article.
1t would be greatly to my advantage in
this reply But as the parts not quoted
by him are purely political, partisan,
and almost personal l cannot break my
rule by quoting the omitted parts.
l feel confident that the reader can
take DR.. Woods whole article and come
to no other conclusion than that the
verbiage justifles the logical interpreta-
ton that party man is not justified
in voting against an unyE "thy man. d.
Woods use OF words and sentences
places him in u very serious dilemma.
According to DR.. Wood, for man to
leave a party tends to disruption and
DISCRIMINATION, not as the greatest
statesmen have said, to the publication
of the parties. 1t also subjects him TO
an eXcoriation at the hands of such men
as DR. Wood when he writes a letter to
a party chairman, and uses as perora-
ton the thrilling story of the pugnacious
little bovine which attacked an engine
which certainly had the right of way.
The eXcoriation is bad enough without
the other, because, when man joins a
political party he ''surrenders his in
diNiduality," and has no fright to indie
pendent action outside the authority of
that party TO which he belongs" He is
in baX fiX-between his Satanic ma
jesty and the deep blue sea- He can