Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1902-04-17


Editor Atlanta Journal
Being engaged and going all this week
until now, l have not been able to give
attention to the recent joint production of
Messrs. Berner. Terrell. Potts and CARING
in relation to the famous Potts tele-
gram. published Sunday and Monday in
so many Of our newspapers. beg to reply
TO II now as briefly as possible, and for
the sake OF clearness will take up sepa@
rately the substance of what each OF
these gentlemen has to say.
As to Mr.. 5erner.
regret that Mr.. Berner insists that
there IS some vital issue between him and
me. that he does not accept my disclaimer
Of all purpose to attack him. and regret
that while he publishes two Of my COM
munications he omits my third and last
one which, among other things. repeats
my disclaimer and which also simplifies
the issue as to Mr.. Terrell as follows:
did Mr.. Terrell sign or send this tele-
gram or have any connection with 1t, and
IL so, what connecticut"
What is Mr.. Berner's real complaint
against me? 1t cannot be more than this:
1 have given additional publicity to the
Potts telegram. The only charge made
against Mr., Berner is contained In that
telegram, viz: las he CONSTITUTES ito that he
had surrendered his Views on the liquor
question. Mr.. Berner uses in his COM
plant against me, Mr. Potts as his friend
and witness, and proves by Mr.. Potts that
he. Mr.. Potts. was the author Of that tele-
gram and therefore his accuser: his accu-
ser when the telegram was sent and his
accuser from that day until this, because
he neither retracts nor qualities nor ex-
plains for the benefit of Mr.. Berner. the
charge he makes against him in that .tele-
gram.
Why does not Mr.. Berner join issue with
Mr.. Potts instead Of with me?
1t Is true have given the telegram adj
ditional publicity, but II was no secret
before It had been published In the For
syth Chronicle in Mr.. Berner's city two
years ago, and Mr.. Burner proves by Mr..
CARING that this identical telegram was
public property on the streets of Forsyth
(Mr, Berner's home city, on the day II
was sent and received viz: August 10.
1896, while Mr.. Rerner was there on the
streets and concerned with the senatorial
convention; also that II was such public
property on August 18th there and in Ma
con the following day. My understanding
is that this telegram had already been
known as the famous Potts telegram"
long before 1 gave IT any publicity what
ever. ~
Mr. Berner SAYS in his letter to me Of
March sth that the first knowledge he had
Of this telegram was given him "a year
or so ago. by, a resident of Macon, and
now in his present communication "a year
ago." yet in this same letter to me Mr..
Berner also says during the campaign
which followed my nomination, 1t was
charged that had surrendered my views
on the LIQUOR question and that the Bibb
delegation had abandoned its fight on me
because they had received communica-
lions from Atlanta TO that effect. BY this
I refer TO the articles published at that
time notably one written by Mr.. W. B.
HILL"
He saws In his present communication:
THE only instance in which coupled
the name Of Mr.. Terrell with this or any
like telegram, occurred in this way: When
this charge was made against me in 1895,
promptly denounced 1t as an unqualified
falsehood."
Among other 2hings said that the
only man from Atlanta whom 1 saw and
conferred with during the slttings Of that
convention was Mr.. Terrell, but that
had not directly or Indirectly surrendered
my convictions to him nor authorized
him to send any kilograms to anybody"
There are other statements In Mr.. Der.
| ner's communications on the line of TINS
but these are Sufficient of themselves ia
amount to a clear admission that Mr.
Berner did know OF this very telegram at
I
cred on the 10th day of August, 1896. and
they also show that Mr.. Terrell was at
| least discussed as the author in relation
to this telegram Immediately after that
in the campaign by Mr.. Berner himself
and Mr.. Berner, according to his state
ment, only denied at that time Mr. Ter
reIl's authority TO send It,
That the telegram was sent and deliver
ed and that IT was public property during
the convention at Forsyth and at Macon
/ and during the campaign that followed
IS both proved and admitted by Mr. Bern
er. How is It possible that the chief
figure and the principal speaker in that
campaign could have known nothing OF
| this telegram? I do not wish to be I'M
derstood as impeaching Mr.. Berner's We
racity, but I feel that the truth require
me to show, as / have done, the strange
confusion Of his mind and memory upon
this subject in order to illustrate the
character OF his recollection about the
entiie matter.
MIR. Terrell.
Mr.. Berner, in his communication to
Mr. Terrell, limits the inquiry simply to
| the writing or sending of the telegram.
The questions addressed to Mr.. Terrell
by myself much more than a month ago
on the 18th Of February in The Waycross
Journal and to which his attention was
Immediately called. did not only cover the
writing ana sen~ng OF the telegram out
in a separate question Immediately fol-
lowing this question was asked and has
been standing ever since unanswered: IF
you say no (as to writing or sending).
please state what connection. you had
with that occasion or with that tele-
gram" In my card already referred to.
of March 14th. the inquiry is condensed
and simplified as follows:
Did Mr.. Terrell sign or send this tele-
gram or have any connection with 1t, and
II so, what connecticut"
These questions are yet unanswered.
Mr.. Potts.
This gentleman, Immediately upon my
publication OF this telegram, viz: on the
18th OF March last. just a month ago. was
called upon by Constitution reporter to
know II he had anything to say about this
telegram sent in his name in 1896. and his
reply was: mo. sir; 1 have nothing TO
say" When thereupon asked If he would
give any reasons for not making a state-
ment. he replied: NO SIR" In his letter
10 Mr.. Berner of date March 18th. written
at the instance Of Mr.. Berner. Mr.. Potts
says that he wrote. signed. sent and paid
for the telegram himself solely upon his
own responsibility.
But in answer to the question whether
he stated to any one that he did not sign