The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1906-06-14
The News Bureau Simply
zone" of the Funds"
Numerous Objects.

numerous Ob1ectS'
A few days ago the Ocala Banner
charged that The Journal had been
Furnished with a complete list of the
gentlemen who were putting up the
kniOney" 10 fight Governor Broward's
drainage scheme, ana that The Jour.
mai had refused TO publish such list.
The Banner then went on to publish
the names OF a number Of citizens Of
South Florida who had issued a cir
cular in opposition to the drainage
scheme and it implied that these citi-
Eens constituted the list referred to-
! Simply to be fair. The Journal pub
Hished this list of names, but ex-
Plained that so far as it had been III
formed they had no connection with
the Florida News Bureau" which
was the subject Of The Journals in
quiry. The Journal wanted to know
who was putting Up the money TO sup
sTOrt the News Bureau" and the Ban
'uer replied by publishing a list Of per
sons who, so far as surface indica-
lions go, had no connection with the
bureau, but evidently not having any
faith In it had issueI a little anti
drainage literature on this own &C
count The two had no connection
whatever. so far as The journals in
curry was concerned, but as the Ban
Der either could not or dared not tell
who was backing the news bureau
st CesOrted to the old Yankee trick OF
dragging in another question in the
hope Of detrscting attention from the
first one.
Our Ocala contemporary was Of
course not suited with The Journals
reply and It now makes a bad case
stu worse BY the following comment:
The Journals reply strikes US as
rather incomplete and somewhat dis
.sngenuOus Our contemporary declares
that il has never received "a complete
list" OF the contributors, thereby i'm
plying that the list given by the Ban
Der was incomplete. But, II the JOuP
ma has never seen "a complete list,
how can it say that the Banners list
As ncOmplete-where does it get the
snfoTmatlOn-what is its basis Of com
pRTdson?
The Journal takes exception to the
fact that in the pamphlet to which the
names OF these contributors are at
,tached, makes no mention Of the
Florida News Bureau" Why should
etZ The Banner simply referred to the
snti-drainage campaign, and as the
above mentioned bureau is but one
factor In the fight, the expenses of the
bureau are, of course, one Of the OBJ
3ects upon which the fund contributed
by the snti-drainage people is TO be
bexpended.
since the Journal has shown so
fEnUch sOlicitude in the matter, we
would suggest another question which
81 might PUohtsbly ask.
Who is putting up the dough for
GoTernOr BrOward in his drainage
campaign?
The Journal does not imply that the
asst 10 which the Banner refers is
either complete or incomplete We
know. absolutely nothing about it ex-
cept what the Banner tells US. but as
the latter stated in plain English that
Il was a complete list" we are willing
70 LEI Il go at that and take the Ban
u9cs wonI for it
We are satisfied that the Banner is
on the inside" OF the anti-drainage
campaign and therefore is enabled to
speak with authority.
We are also glad to know that the
s'Florida News Bureau" is simply "one
81 the objects upon which the fund
contributed by the anti-drainage PEG
pie is to be expended"
Now, may We be permitted to know
Further what some Of the other objects
are?
This Is really getting 10 be a very
interesting subject and we hope thel
Banner viii see AZ to go somewhat
i,sto details and explain how that fund
which it refers to with such easy Ia
miliarity, is going TO be used, asi0o
from supporting a public sentiment
mandatory as in the case of tho
News Bureau"
80 far as Governor Broward is con-
cerned, we imagine that he can answer
any important question which The
Banner cares 10 direct to him. The
journal is not his keeper and does not
speak for him in any way. Why aot
ask the governor direct what you want
- ID