The news & observer., 1905-12-27
Letter to Mr.. Moody.
"Hendersonville, N. c.


Dec. &c. 1906.
Hon. William Fl. Moody, Attorney
General United States Washing
ton, d. c.
Sir: / have been informed upon good
authority that you expressed the opin-
ion, before a visiting delegation OF
citizens of this State. that the verified
complaint filed by me in the case OF
Anderson VS.. H. s. Harkins, I. S. Roll
Inns. A. S. Holton and j. M. Milii-
kan was tissue of lies. am
further informed that the statement
was made by you when no reference
whatever had been made to the case
by any of the distinguished gentle
men present.
T cannot Of course, allow this
harsh and unjustifiable remark, which
appears to have been entirely gratni-
tous on your part, to pass unnollceu.
Whether it was seemly for an Of
fetal of the government. occupying
the high legal position you do, 10
characterize a complaint nled III
civil action by one citizen of this state,
i'm which you had no interest or con-
Germ whatever, "a tissue OF lies,
leave to your own sense of decency
and propriety.
II would appear from your remark
that you had either been grossly ms
informed as to the facts in the case
referred To OF IIiSlI yOu ilSiNf q 81 ~A'icN
conception of the rights of cltlZen
to institute q suit in the courts Of
his State Not a newspaper III this
state. Republican or Democratic, not
an Individual in the State of either
political party so far as l nave peeh
able to learn, has assumed 10 char-
acterize my action fn insttuting this
suit as infamous, or my sworn com
plant fled as tissue of lies.
Decent citizens in this State are DIS
posed to leave the issues involved IN
tho trial of civil causes to the courts
and juries of the country, ana not
attempt to prejudice the case OF
plaintiff or defendant, by the charac-
terization of the pleadings as raise
and libelous.' and the institution of
the suit as an insult to the judiciary.
Your remark is not only needless
" harsh and offensive; but from eV-
cry sense of decency and fair play, II
is Objectionable on the following
grounds: First. it is no business OF
yours. l had right to sue Tor re-
dress in the courts of my state, IL
I deemed proper, and if | made
mistake il is nobody's concern but
nv own. l have not invoked the ald
of the Federal government or the
department of justice to aid me
in the prosecution of my suit, ana
had hoped that the defendants
WOulu llhcNlSC " ~ ~
own defense. Then why should you
have expressed any opinion in the
matter at all?
Second. After you had taken it
upon yourself to express an opinion In
matter which in no way concerns
you, you should, at least. have taken
the trouble to inform yourself as to
the facts in the case, instead of re-
living upon the ex parte. unswoTn
sacrament of one of the defendants.
Third You should have the de-
cency TO noinv out the Dartculaf
parts of the complaint. which are false
instead of making such a general anu
sweeping statement; for the defend-
ants themselves will not attempt TO
deny many of the allegations Oh the
complaint.
Fourth. Your remark is highly
objectionable because three of the de-
PENDANTS are high officials of the Uni
ted States government, while the
fourth is chairman of the Republican
executive committee of North Caro-
lima, the party to which you belong,
while the plaintiff is but a private cit
-izen holding no office and asking for
none. Is it seemly and proper for one
department of the federal government
to Interfere on behalf of the govern
ment officials. and against private
citizen in a suit to recover damages
for an injury sustained, or supposed
to be sustained? Would you have
made tho remark attributed to you
had my suit been against other prl-
vate citizens?
And lastly, the party or parties
who informed you that my complaint
was a tissue of lies have themselves
wlllfully or ignorantly lied as VIII
be shown later, and you by repeating
the falsehood, without making a
nv ficr0t Ion f1lll a
party to it,
/ have no fear as to the outcome
of the case: but suppose for the sake
of argument, | am mistaken as to my
rights in this matter; suppose / fail
to recover. will / be the first plain
tiff who has ever failed to make out
his case? Was a case ever tried be-
fore a jury till some question of fact
was at issue. that is, till it is affirmed
on one side and denied on the other
in the courts of any country where
the common law prevails? So if the
defendants had denied my sworn COM
plaint in a duly verified answer it
would be no more than must happen
in every case that is tried before
jury But in this case no answer has
as vet been filed. True. a motion was
made to strike out one section of my
COMPLAINT. and this motion is to be
heard at the March term of our court
The defendants asked time to file an
answer which was granted without
objection on the part of the plaintiff
although the proper time TO file the
answer was at the last term of our
court that is the term which was
held last November. OF course the
defendants had the right to ask for
time to file their answer, and it was
in the discretion of the court to grant
or refuse their request. But if they
intended to try the case before you, as
IT appears they did. they should have
fled their answer at the last term