The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1912-01-12
MR.. plRRELL's LETTER.

from Columbia, The Herald on Frida
morning received a letter from Conn
troller Frank Dibrell. which had bee
previously published in the liquor oil
gan Of the State, the Nashville Dem
ocrat, In which Mr.. Dibrell makes
violent and unwarranted attack OF
the editor of this paper. The caus,
of our offending was an editorial O
Jan. 3, entitled, "A Powerful Ma
chime Although Mr.. Dibrell refers
specifically to this editorial as the
source of his wrath he does not deny
or controvert single statement made
therein. However, he substitutes
language never used and denies al
Legations never made.
There is not one word in the edi-
torial Of Jan. that Is not the plain,
unvarnished truth. Not line Of 1t
can be successfully controverted.
And nowhere in the editorial is Dbl
rell charged with being the author
ef the delinquent tax act Of 1911. Not
being the Governor or the Leglsla-
ture every one knows that Mr.. DID
rell could not be, in the strict inter-
probation OF the term, the author Of
any measure. The Herald did charge
and does now repeat the charge that
the Comptroller's machine is the d.
rect and chief beneficiary of the de-
linquent tax act of 1911. And in proof
a that fact we do not have to 60 out-
side Of the records of Maury county.
Some 200 bills filed in this county,
under that act, seek to collect about
$500 In State and county taxes But
the agents and attorneys appointed
~ the machine will be the beneficial
ries in these collections to the
amount Of two or three times that
sum. The records Of Davidson and
other counties prove the same fact.
The Herald has never denied that
Governor Hooper approved the law In
question; in fact but few days ago
criticised him for not vetoing the
bill. However, the fact that Gov.
Hooper did or did not approve the
law is not involved in this matter.
Had saints passed and angels approx
ed the delinquent tax act Of 1911 Dbl
rell's machine would still have been
the chief beneficiary and the law an
iniquity.
The following are the only refer
ences made in the editorial complain I
cd Of to the law in question:
Under the back tax law and the
delinquent tax act Of the last legis-
lature the fees and commissions that
will accrue to this unlimited horde
Of ofiicial collectors is simply enor-
npus." +
i II i HI =
aBut we believe that the recent
outrageous delinquent tax law win
prove the beginning of the end; that |
this act will ultimately have the
same disastrous effect upon Its bene-
ficiary that the Patterson effort. to
coerce the supreme court and the
Cooper pardon had on the then Gov
ernor.'
In the light of these facts who is
the slanderer and the falsifier?
The Herald will not go with Mr.
Dibrell to the gutter to discuss this
controversy. 1t will not indulge in
billingsgate and irrelevant personali
ties with him or any other man. For
Mr. Dibrell personally neither The
Herald nor its editor care a rap. This
paper has no personal Ill will toward
him or any other public servant. 1t
has no war to wage upon him as an
Individual
But Mr.. Dibrell is public Official
and as such he is fair subject of
legitimate criticism, and we here and
now challenge him to point to single
line that ever appeared in the col
dmhs Of this paper that was not q
lair and legitimate criticism Of his
oficial acts. We defy him to cite
single instance where he has ever
been attacked In any but fair, legiti-
mate and parliamentary language
such as gentlemen are accustomed to
use in the discussion Of public cues
lions.
And we might as well repeat here
and now what we have repeatedly
said. not in the spirit Of swagger and
that characterizes Mr..
Dibrell's explosion. but as fact. and
that is that we propose to fairly and
legitimately and impersonally criti
else any offician of the State, county
city or nation, whose official conduct,
In the Judgment Of the editor Of this