The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1905-12-20
An Invitatia& to Mr.. Dial.

II news and Courier OF last Friday
contained the following communication:
To the Editor of The \ 5 and Courier.
Returning to South ina after a
weeks absence, my Antion is
brought to a letter of Mr.. Dial.
of Laurens, published December 2. in
which he refers to my expressions about
the Laurens Mill controversy, and en-
ploys innuendo which means, if it
means anything, that my relationship
TO the matter prevents me from speak
same time r. Dial ~naively points to
his own alb. ty to separate himself in
writing as a itizen from himself as a
Milliken alto ey.
My relations Up to the controversy is,
first, that of small stakeholder. [
nave such imam ri interest as Col. j..
D. M. Shaw az Mr.. Bell and Mr..
Madden and Mr.. I nmons. None of us
expects lawyers f, s or other prefer
ment., We are iii louody's pay.
In the SECOND place l have an abiding
friendship for MIR. Lucas, of long stand
ing, grounded on a firm belief in his
honesty and manliness, If / am what
Mr.. Dial calls "Mr. Lucas's press
agent, Mr.. Dial we'll knows that onlv
these considerations have driven me to
that attitude, and if my sentiment of
friendship has sharpened the intensity
OF my protest against the conduct of
Dr., Dlal's clients-even if my stirred
feelings have led me to indignant ut
~rance- the motive is at least not
sordid, and await with complacency
the Judgment of all lovers of fair deal
ing, and of all sympathizers with the
man in his unequal struggle, when set
upon and bounded by the millionaire.
1t is fair here to add that on the day
of the annual meeting of the stock
holders, May 10, Mr.. Dial desired Mr..
Lucas to succeed in the controversy
go he told ms out of his own mouth.
III further proof be needed it will be re-
called that with Mr.. Dial the Milliken fac
ton would have held a majority of the
board of directors prior to that meet
ing. The fact that Messrs. Dial. Fer
guson, Hale of Boston, Fleming and
Mllhken, now of the Milliken element,
constituted a majority of the board of
directors during the mill year 1904 and
l905 damns the sincerity of charges of
mismanagement or wrong doing by Luz
cas- up to the termination of their di-
rectorships. Why did they not meet
and demand Mr.. Lucas's resignation?
protest against MI. Dial's use of
the term 1.-The home people" He does
not represent or speak for the people
hhiOuS a iOll-IGSluGIlU i
am more truly a Laurens man in this
issue than he. If he challenges this
denial | shall go into detail, but pend
idg that, | defer to the dislike for
publicity and notoriety" which he
avows in his letter; for possibly it ex-
tends to some of his allies. If he would
have the lid lifted, let him speak the
word, for ! am tired of hearing the in
~sinuatlon that Lucas's "home people,"
VINO are my people, are the Instruments
of oppression in the hands of the Milli-
the Milliken lawyer and the stock
bolde who is Lucas's personal friend.
BY appealing to the press Mr.. Dial
seems to, admit the character of this
dispute as affecting the public interest.
l, therefore, invite him to Join with me
IN an appeal to the people of South
Carolina, in their representative ca
paclty, the General Assembly, for the
appointment of a commission to inves-
tlgate the relations between the North
ern selling agents and the South Caro-
lima mills. Let us see, for example.
whether or not there are combinations
In restraint of trade in violation of the
existing drastic South Carolina statute.
make this proposition in all serious.
ness. Why should not the Millikens
trust the Legislature as well as the
Courts? Meanwhile we MAY see
whether or not the fingers of Mr.. Dial,
the Millken attorney, shall press to ST.
lence the lips of that Mr.. Dial who has
Tor once overcome his scruples against
publicity and notoriety" to write as a
"citizen and taxpayer of South Caro-,
lima" w w rail-
In regard to Mr.. Dial's claim about
the contract with j. P. Stevens Com
pany, here is the answer, in addition to
what Mr.. Featherstone has said:
1T is saving to the stockholders about
$4,000 the year more than was saved
when the Millikens represented the
Mills.
The fact that it continues for a term
of years will prevent the Millikens for
That term of years from becoming sell
ing agents and charging about double
the Stevens commissions if they get
control. 1t may have the effect of pro-
tocting the Mill for the future.
MIR. S. M. Milliken has sworn that
his firm cannot do business at lower
rates than it charged. AS long as that
bath stands Mr.. Milliken's firm will
have to own or indirectly control mills
IN order to get their business.
Deering, Milliken & Company did not
permit Mr.. Lucas to sell except through
them. Mr.. Lucas if he sold to other
concerns at all did it in defiance of the
Millikens.
Personally, the writer would add that
he has not criticized any stakeholder
who merely sold his holdings and wiped
his hands of the fight.
Improving the Farm.
The News and Courier recently con