The Semi-weekly leader. (Brookhaven, Miss.) 1905-1941, 1907-10-05
HAS GLIDEO AWAY FROM THE ORIG.
INAL POINT.


one of the editors of that paper.
Though facetiously referring to the
editor of The Leader as IAN art
full dodger,'' The Times writer
himself has managed to shy en-
tirely away from the very point
that in the beginning provoked
this discussion. That was a
plain, un mistakable insinuatlon in
The Times of Sept. 18th, that
Governor Vardaman had pardon
ed the five Lincoln County white
caps the week before in fulfill
ment of political deal entered
into by him for white cap votes
in this county, which the editor
of The Leader, knowing to be
false, denounced the following
week as "a dirty, baseless slander
which only reflects the true char
acter of its author or authors. 80
Instead of trying to make good
the truth of its unwarranted insin-
uation against the Governor, if it
had any proof to offer, The Times
next made haste to deny meaning
what its language plainly implied,
and then lodged off into a discus
sion of the political and editorial
record of the editor of The Lead
er, and insinuated that there was
political deal in the woodpiIe
somewhere, even though the Gov
ernor was not direct party to it,
and which The Leader of last
Saturday, for good and sufficient
reason, denounced as another
false and sIanderous insinuation." f"
In our'reply to The Times
second article, The Leader, for the
first time, briefly maGe personal
reference to one of the editors of
The Times, and now forsooth, in
the last article of The Times, we
find this particular editorial
writer whining about PERSONAL
ties having been dragged into the
discussion by the editor of The
Leader to divert attention from
the main issue.
Judging by both of the last
articles of The Times, the editor
of The Leader, and not either
Governor Vardaman or the par
doning of white caps, has become
the main issue with somebody.
In our editorial of last Saturday
The Leader said: "The main OBJ
ject of The Times last article
seems to be to convict the editor
of The Leader of various incon-
sistencies, and it makes the blum
der of constituting what we said in
our issne of Sept. 18th about
whitecaps in this county sup
porting the best men for Office
without reference to their former
white cap affiliations as only in
tended by us to apply tu Varda-
man and Noel" etc.
AS an example of the way The
Times writer perverts the above
we quote from him as follows:
"Various Inconsistencies is
the term which the editor of The
Leader is pleased to apply to the
flip flap he turned between Octo-
ber 81, 1906 and September II,
1907"
As must have been evident to
the unprecedented reader, the
words various Inconsistencies"
had reference to all the 'inconsis-
tencies" alleged by The Times
against the editor of The Leader,
political, journalistic or other
wise, extending over a long
period Of years, and not limited
to any particular time-a con-
densed restatement by us of what
The Times article contained per-
sonal to the editor of this paper.
Further along in its article of
last Thursday The Times says:
will he dare repubIish the
paragraphs quoted last week from
The Leader of Oct. 81, 1906,
wherein be claims to be misquoted
and tell what wrought his change
of heartg"
As matter of fact The Leader
has nowhere claimed that The
Times "misquoted'' its articles of
Oct. 81, 1906; although the above
is quite enough to convict. it of
grossly misquoting and garbling
our editorial of last Saturday, and
we challenge it to prove other.
wise.
The editor of The Leader does
not feel called upon to accept the
puny dare of The Times to re-
publish Leader editorials of
October, 1906. There is no good
or sufficient reasons for our doing
4 r.. II