The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1905-06-20
Tuesday, June 20, 1905
"PENDER" AND ~, I. BLAND

In The News and Observer of last
Friday there appeared the cOmmunica-
ton given below. Mr.. Bland is an at
torney of Pender county-the same
who wished The Messenger to publish
for him in it's issue of last Sunday an
article on the state test farm question,
which article The Messenger refused
to publish and gave it's reasons for
such refusal in it's editorial columns on
the Tuesday following.
We did not intend to refer to this
matter again, but certain statements in
Mr.. BANDS article. we think, require
comment.
In the first place, it will be noted
that the letter in the Raleigh paper is
signed by the writer with his true
name, while he was unwilling that
such should be the case with his letter
to this paper. Had we published that
communication it would lave appeared
over the nom de plume of "Pender," so
signed by the author.
Mr.. Bland, without mentioning
names, makes the charge that this pa
per has condemned to the waste-paper
basket an article voicing the senti-
ments of the people of Fender county,
referring, of course, to his article
which we rejected
We do not believe the good people
f Do-Io,. --~,,IJ have o-1oHcaI 4hnf
letters abusive tone against the busl-
ness men of Wilmington.
AS to why Mr.. BANDS "Pender" let
ter was not published in our columns
he was. we have reason to believe,
fully advised when he wrote his letter
to The News and Observer. It was
stated in our Tuesdays issue that
'Pender's" communication was reject
ed because it contained charges,
made mostly by inuendo, some of them
quite broad, against persons who had
taken active part, through public inter-
est, in the location of the farm" We
then said that u columns were never
open to personal attacks by CORE
%spondents, especially when made by
persons not willing that their articles
should appear over their real Names
We then considered Mr.. BANDS article
subject to these objections and still
so think it.
AS to Mr.. BANDS charge that we
attempted to "stigmatize the author be-
fore the people Of the state" we plead
not guilty, n rest the case upon the
language used and on the further fact
that he, as o o as he became aware
of the publication. of our editorial, sent
us an order for twenty copies of that
issue. He could have secured full in
formation as to what The Messenger
had said by borrowing a single CODY
from some neighbOr. The fact that he
wanted twenty copies suggests that
they were desired for distribution
among his friends to show that he
was the subject of comment in the
columns of 1.-The leading daily of this
city "a heap of folks like newspaper
nOtOriety no matter of what kind and
precludes the idea that he at that time
thought the article an attempt to stig-
Matte him before the people of the
state.
Another statement by Mr.. Bland in
his letter to The News and Observer
which needs attention is that those
persons who are trying to secure the
location of the test farm near Will
mington desire to carry their point by
force or strategy" This statement is
without foundation and we challenge
him to make good his charge.
When Mr.. Bland wrote his letter to
The News and Observer, intimating
that u refusal to publish his COM
municatiOn was because it was in ia
vor of a different location of the farm
from the n we thought the most adj
yantageous he knew that our reason
for such refusal was becaus of the in
temperate language occurring in it;
the quotation in the hex above para
graph being a fair but mild specimen
of the tenor of his letter.
AS to another charge by Mr.. Bland
in his News and Observer letter. There
is not one word in anything The Mes
senger has ever published which i'm
pugns by any one the integrity OF
questions the competency of the men,
bers of the committee regarding the
selection Of a test farm. All we have
claimed is that farmers as competent
- e i11dno- a c4hon The