The news & observer., 1905-12-27

of the court, for they have put you
in the very awkward position of char
acterizing my complaint as - tissue OF
lies when they have not even answer
ed and so far as you know they may
never answer.
AS my case will be tried Ecfore
court and jury of my State. and as
| feel that both my.ie.L and the de-
PENDANTS will receive a fair and inn
partial trial, and as do not value
your opinion in this matter. / would
nave taken no notice of your remark
had it not been given wide publicity
in the press So / think it but right
that | should explain my position be-
fore that larger tribunal to which
your remark was addressed.
Upon what authority did you char
acterize my complaint as "a tissue of
lies?" You are reported to have given
letter received from T. S. Rollins,
ESQ, one of the defendants, as your
authority. You refused to read the
whole letter to the delegation, and
am therefore left in the dark as
to that part of il which you did not
read For aught | know it may con-
tain false and damaging statements
in regard to myself. which / have no
opportunity of answering.
/ have been reliably informed,
however. that United States Circuit
Judge. ]. G.. Pr tchard, the father-in-
law OF Thomas S. Rollins one of the
defendants in this action, whom l
can connect with the contract made
bv the defendants to me. who was
United States Senator and State Chair
man before Mr.. Rollins, and who is
necessa riIy an interested party, called
on you and made certain statements
i'm regard to this case. / have also
been informed that District Judge,
James r. Boyd. did the same thing.
/ do not know whether this is true
or nct If it is true, why did these
distin lished gentlemen take it upon
thems Ives to interfere in private
suit J. tween individuals? Does not
the very fact that they did so show
their interest? If they did not deem
it derogatory to their dignity as high
Judicial officers of the government
to meddle gratuitously in this matter,
if they could afford to make secret
charges which might prejudice the
rights of one party to the suit, then
it does not seem to me that they
ought to be willing to make those
charges openly that / may have an op-
portuDity to answer them. They
would admit no such evidence upon
the trial of any case at issue before
to rely upon such statements? If
these gentlemen have not interfered
| crave their pardon for having men
toned their names in this connection.
But if you had no better author
ity of characterizing my complaint as
"a tissue of lies" than the letter. of Mr..
Rollins. from which YOU read ex-
tracts to gentlemen from North Caro-
olina, you made this broad and SLAM
derous statement against a private
citizen upon evidence which no justice
of the peace in this broad land would
have admitted in the trial of a case
involving fifty cents.
The only motion so far made in
the case of Anderson VS.. Rollins ct al,
was a motion to strike out section six
of the complaint. which gives the
names of a few of the relatives ap
pointed to office, on the grounds that
it was "scandalous. irrelevant and i'm
pertinent" in a certain sense l will
ling TO admit that section six of my
complaint is scandalous in the ex-
treme, for it treats of such scandal
defendants that / could not make 1T
otherwise.
That the recent chairman of the
Republican party of this State. j. G.
Pr:tchard, the father-in-law of one
of the defendants. and his son-in-law,
II. S. Rollins, our present chairman.
should have caused to be appointed
in the brief period of six years more
than fifty of their relatives by blood
and b. marriage discloses a most