The log cabin Democrat. [volume] (Conway, Ark.) 1901-1982, 1908-10-22
GRIFFIN EXPLAINS ARTICLE
Saws Criticism of Smell was Not
on Personal Grounds.
Third Chapter of Controversy Between
Tribune Editor and Prominent
Farmers Unionist.
sditor Log Cabin Democrat:
FROM MONDAYS DAILY.


is an article from R. B. Smell en-
titled, Smell Answers Griffin, to
which l wish to reply. l am in
deed sorry that the gentleman has
seen fit to take upon himself such
a personal grievance over the ar
ticle that was copied by you, and
which appeared in the Arkansas
Union Tribune of Oct. 6. For any
one who read the article will
readily see that there was no per-
sonal reference or intent at person
al abuse of Smell for the interview
accredited to him and the an
nouncement going forth to the state
under box-oar headlines, that
Smell, state lecturer was going to
resign. The misleading inference
to be deducted from this statement
by the public who did not know
but what Smell was a lecturer
solely prompted us in saying what
we did, and not any mal-intent at
the gentlemnn.
But now in this article of yester-
days, the gentleman in his person
al attack and scurrilous epithets
does not answer the ridiculous at
titude of his mix-up in this ques-
ton. He starts out by saying that
the article quoted from, as appear
ing in the Gazette was exaggerated
We opine that any gentleman be-
ing thus wrongfully quoted should
avail himself of an opportunity of
correcting same through the perid-
ical that misquoted him. We rise
to ask if anyone has ever seen any
correction of this mis- quoted Ian
guage on the part of state lectur-
er by invitation, only. 1t is not
Smell as an Individual that prompts
us to make the correction or write
the article we did for the Tribune,
but Smell, the lecturer thus quoted,
duplicating the integrity of the un-
ion and, placing the union in the
attitude of sending out lecturer
who was going to play "high-div-
er" and get out unless radical
steps were taken by the union to
suppress night-riders." The ridi-
culousness of the condition thus
thrown upon the union prompted
our reply, and not the personality
of the man. But since he has
seen fit to become so offended, al
low us to turn on the light.
The article in the Gazette quotes
him as state lecturlf. He has not
said that he was quoted wrong in
in this particulars. The article
quotes him as saying, that he, a
state lecturer, was going to resign,
unless, etc." He does not say in
hisarticle that this was a wrong
statement. So, we are left to infer
that he tells the truth at both ends
of the line. First, when he told
the Gazette reporter that he was
state lecturer and was going to re-
sign, and when he finds himself
caught in a predicament involving
the integrity of the union, then It
is that he admits that he is not IN
any way connected with an official
position of the Farmers Union,
but is a state lecturer by the pro-
cess of local, county or district in
vitation, thus bearing out the CON
tention of our article, that neither
Smell or any other man had the
authority to speak as an accredited
state lecturer of the Farmers I'm
ion, Personally we have nothing
against Smell, but defence OF the
principles of the Farmers Union
and its officials was our intent IN
writing the article to which he be-
comes very much offended, and we