French Broad hustler and Western Carolina Democrat. [volume] (Hendersonville, N.C.) 1915-1916, 1916-04-13
MARION BUTLER AND US.
Charlotte Observer

\OAC~ ~
Marion Butler serves notice on The
Observer Company and also upon the
editor of The Charlotte Observer, Of
intended action at law, both criminal
and civil, against him for libel. In his
notice he makes complaint of my edi-
torial in the issue of the 18th day of
March, 1916, of the article from The
Observers Raleigh correspondent ap-
pearing in the issue of the 18th day of
March, 1916, and of our reproduction
of the ~utterances of ex-Congressman
Fwart appearing in the issue of the
Goth day of March, 1916.
Under the statute of our State regu-
lating such matters, we are allowed
five days after the receipt of notice to
retract and apologize for any matter
complained of in the notice, and there
by escape any vindictive, punitive Or
exemplary damages.
Neither the editor nor The Observer
has any apology to make to Marion
Butler for anything appearing in the
publications referred to in this notice.
The editor of The Observer regret
having reproduced the language quot
ed from Judge Ewart'c article to the
effect that Marion Butler is a liar, in
CRATE and knaVe." l rerget this be-
u it is not such language as should
appear in a journal of the character of
The Observer with reference to any
body. However, if Marion Butler pre-
peTs to call US to account for it instead
Of his fellow Republican, eX-Congress-
man and eX-Judge Ewart, the author
OF the language, we decline to make
any apology to him for having repub-
lished it. l did not use this language
about Marion Butler myself. l would
not fave done so, but l a G ono furth-
Ell in apology for having republisheI
the matter from Judge Ewart than the
foregoing. p
AS to one other matter If Mr.. But
Ter wilihave his attorneys or other rep
reeentatives convince us that he did
not insert. or cause to be inserted, or
that his associates and partners in the
matter did not insert for him with
legal authority to do so, the following
advertisement, tO-Wit:-
Advertisement New York evening
Post, April, 1905.
Court of the United States en....N.
"The recent decision of the Su-
preme Court of the United States
entitled South Dakota VS.. North
Carolina wherein the former State
secured a judgment against the
latter on 10 bonds, par value $10,-
900, amounting with interest to
S27, 400 (Which has been paid has
greatly enhanced the value of all
other re%pudiated State bonds. be-
cause it has established the law
and procedure by which they can
be enforced.
"The undersigned committee, in
1901. pooled all of one issue of
North Carolina bonds and origi-
mated the plan by which the above
successful results were brought
about, n obtained a settlement
for the individual b~ondholders at
a little less than par, of their en-
tire holdings of these bonds.
The committee is now ready to
proceed with the collection of all
other repudiated bonds of every
class of each State.
"The committee has no connec
ton with any other committee,
and it knows that it alone is now
IN a position to avail itself of the
benefits of the above mentioned
decision.
Those who desire to enforce the
collection of their bonds will de-
posIt the same with the North
American Trust Company, 1875