The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1909-05-11

ously estimated at from So IA s
including seed n fertilizers? s--
figures" the bulletin COntf~
show a net return of from s26 -
which is above the average for
crop as now grown in the I'm
States, but decidedly lower thar ,-5-
be expected under favorable CO-EtA.~.
and proper cultural methods,
AS to the history Of the peanu+
bulletin says: 1T is not defrl-s..
known when and where the pa7..-
was first cultivated. Several 7-.-.
species of plants are natives Of Pr
and there is every Indication thai
common peanut originally am t
tropical America. Peanuts Wers
troduced into the United States dur.
the earlier days of colonization ..,
did not become Of commercial Inn
ance until about 1870. From
time until 1897 the growth OF the --.-
nut industry was gradual, but q g-es-
increase in the production and usa r-
peanuts has taken place during The
last eight or ten years. B0tar s~-H.
the peanut belongs to the same e ,
Of plants as do the beans ard 0s-,
but it possesses the character Of .--
turing its fruit or nut beneatt ---
surface Of the soil rather than a. ~
ground, as do most other leguv~ .s.s
plants"
That Smith "Contest."
J. A. Smith. Of Bessemer CITY. z.7
is cOntesting the seat Of Reprase~-r-
tive Webb in the House. has bee in
Washington for several days psf.
The contest is regarded as 50 frivolous
that persons familiar with such tL#u-s
say it is extremely doubtful whether
Nv Cpo;tb Will no ah1a In a0t--r r.
$4,000 usually allowed contestants .r
The case will One up dur
ing the regular session, beginning u-Nl
fall, and will be adjudicated pE9t.4lr
within a few months.
The evidence taken by Mr.. >ccIta
in CASTOR and Mecklenburg couc,-- ~.
for he abandoned his charges as g.
the other counties, did not. III TN,
opinion of Mr.. Webb and his CoLos~.
warrant the taking Of any tesciu.ea
in rebuttal. There was 40 attempt
to show that of the illegal votes a-
legged to nave been allowed o. s.0-|.
one was cast for Mr.. Webb: ~}- I'm
fact was it shown that any S1~- ol
fraud was perpetrated. In Mecls-A-
burg a number of persons t~e5-.--.
that because of an understands said
to have existed between Jam L.
Bell, Democratic county ChGLrnosn,
and the Republican county cG1lr-
man, no challenges We're made,
but in 40 instance was it show shat
any qualified person was QepCiv@l of
his vote, or that any unqualified pei
son was allowed to vote. TIL H.
publican chairman. himself testified
that, L had absolutely no agreement,
expressed or implied, that tnere would
be no challenges, and that perSCUs ."l
entitled to vote would be allow -
vote in that election
Not Within the Law.
In his complaint Mr.. Smith dft ."t
ever allege that Mr.. Webb derlTeI anN
advantages from any irreguIar-tr~
He did not claim that, except fo~ 5Jc'
irregularities, the result OF the aie r."'
would be reversd. 1t was ALLEGED CHAT
in the entire district about 1900 sare-
We're east by persons who had n"'
paid their poll taxes as prescribed
by law. but it was not claimed -h.'
any Of these supported Mr.. Webb .u.
does ne allege that Webb yg5s 900.
elected or that he was.
The law requires hat notice OF '".
test shall be served within 90 ll.-
after the result of the election -3.
been determined. The board Of ~-au
canvassers met and canyassed the e."n.
gressionaj vote. on the 27ti Of Me-
Vember; and notice was not
until the 29th of December.
The law also requires that COr--~r-
ant shall take testimony not more lUa.
40 days from date on which aIl,@cl
was served. The testimony III Car
lotte was taken IL days after MIR
Webb'S answer was served. II 1t~
reQulreS that nitce of the t1KIu- "
testimony shall be served on ..
testee Observation-Disclosures thing 3-..
Mr.. Smith overlooked.