The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-08-03
Receivership News Pur-
veyor in Bad Way.
THINK --TANK DAFFY
Herein is Set Forth As Nearly As Pos
sibIe in Letters Of One Syllable the
Tuncness of the Nuncness So
That Even the Blind
May See.


pie in this enlightened age have fail
ed to grasp the ''muncness of the
tunc''-in other words how frail and
delicate a thing is the public memory
even when a matter has been shouted
from the housetops so that all might
hear.
Knowing this and realizing that
the average citizen, reused as he may
be at the spur of the moment to take
off his coat and save the State goes
quietly back the next morning to at
tend to the routine of his personal
affairs so that he speedily forgets, 1T
was sought yesterday to explain calm
ly and through means of patent facts
the broad and glaring difference be-
tween themunc and the tune OF Judge
Purnells latest Cuyler- Finch McBee
order. And it must be said that to
the people the thing was made plain;
but there seems to be need still of
explanation and careful reminder in
one other quarter.
Surprising as it may seem. that
quarter is none other than the
Morning Post, the organ from the be-
ginning, of McBee. Finch and Cuyler
and the bright particular of the
ReceiVership runs of the Atlantic and
North Carolina Railroad 1t was
hardly to be supposed that the tune
WOulQ nave Deen IOSl Ill llldl. QudIleI,
yet such would appear from its yes
terday's editorial to be the case.
Hence, an explanation-aS nearly as
possible in words of one Syllable-as
to what was tune and what is mlnc,
and, in addition little history which
will be drawn from the source that
should be considered in all conscience
good authority for the purposes of
this diseussion-th columns of Munc
pro Tune itself.
You said in your editorial of yes
terday, Tune, the following:
IAN important order in the Cuyler
suit concerning "a receiverShip for the
Atlantic and North Carolina Railroad
is published for the first time in The
Morning Post tOday. Besides the fact
that il brings I'm "a new party the or
der sets out what was stated from
the bench at the time Judge PurnelI
made the order granting the petition
for receivership, viz: that it was not
the purpose of the court to tie up the
road indefinitely in the hands OF ~
received and thereby prevent lease
or other disposition of the property
TO the advantage of the stockholders,
but that the court would consider an
order to lease as basis for diScharg-
ing the receivership."
Do not jump at conclusions Nunc,
nor take things too easily at their
face value: that is habit that has
lead many good man into egreglouS
and serious loss.
In your editorial YOU state that
'the order sets out what was stated
from the bench at the time Judge
Purnell made the order granting the
petition for a receivership."
Why, then, Tune, did you publish
the news that the owners of the road
were permitted to lease their proper
ty under big headlines?
If Judge Purnell made the order
from the bench in May that be in
corporated in the order of July 27th,
where does the news come in?
As has been stated before with all
seriousness ''nunc pro tune" means
now for them and if the nnnc order
was really the tune order, where
pray, is the news in nunc pro tune?
But if you had looked more care
fully into the matter. Tune, you
would have found that what YOU said
tune will not fit in nicely with what
you say nunc. The game of follow
my leader" has it's limitations.
If you had turned over your files to
May goth, Tune, you would have
found that your version of the order
made on that day was as follows:
During the hearing the court
stated that il was not in the province
of the court to lease the road, but
simply 10 preserve the property and
when the order was made appointing
the receiver the court SAID iii re-
spOnSe to inquiry that stockholders
can at any time they desire hold a
meeting and vote on propositions for
the lease of the road and when any
proposal is accepted by them ii can
be submitted to the court for approval
and i'm the event 1T is SATISFAC-
TORY TO THE COURT I've will there-
after dismiss the receivership."
Now, Nunc, which version is right.
do You say?
In view of the fact that the News
and Observer caught the same thing
in almost the same way, the differ
ence in vertiage being only sufficient
to show that the two reports were
written by different men. both trying
to be accurate, there will be left little
doubt as to what was tune and what
was nunc
The order as the News nnd OBJ
se"ve" had it on May 29th was as fol-
lows
''In the meantime Mr. Thomas ID.
Meares, of Wilmington, is appointed
receiver to take charge at once. and
the restraining order is criticised,
This, the Judge said, will not permit
the stockholders from meeting and
determining the question of accept
ing a lease proposition. OF course.
he said. if the stockholders should
decide to lease ii they could SUBMIT
THE PROPOSITION TO THE
COURT. AND If THE COURT APP
PROVES 1T, the receivcrship will be