The Robesonian., 1918-05-27
Scottish Chief Replies to MIR.
Johnson.


chief last week:
Mr.. Johnson Communication.
Mr.. johnson does not usually stop
o enter into & newspaper controversy,
IS to whether his conduct is right OF
proper" He has scarcely violated
nat rule il this :ls-anee. He mas
,ather entered g r.sa of confession
and avoidance fo- = answer to the
parts Of tie editorial COM;
planned cf-or perhaps It Will be bet
Ter stated as de- end confession,
and to other parts J ouIbble and a
of m We. ...-....
He first seizes Upon an error IN
stating that 95 men were to be ex-
amined in District No 2 ard only SO
in district No. l. "rel, as he says,
the numbers were reversed That is
true, we believe, but So far as the ar
gument is concerned, it is qulbble--l
and Mr.. Johnson knows Webster's def
inition Of legal quibbler. It was to
this class that Junius in his classic
letters, referred, when he said, "do
not injure me so much as to suspect
that I am a lawyer, l would alnostf
as leaf be a Scotchman."
Mr.. Johnson next deals with
the "main misstatement" which he
says lis in trying to leave the i'm
preston that he had anything to do !
with allowing the credits to the two
exemption boards on account Of prior
enlistments.' He then proceeds to
prove the truth Of the charge in the
offending editorial, viZ-that when
Col Sellers and others of the EXenlp-
ton board No. 2 tried to get credit
for enlistments from this district for
which district No. l had receiced
credit, the authorities al Raleigh Of
fered to recommend the change if the
two boards would agree. But when,
as he states in his confession, MI.
MacKay called him on the telephone
and asked him if he would consent,
he refused, upon the grounds that
he had no information nor authority.
Thus he confirms our statement that
he refused to agree" It was not a
question Of who had the supreme au-
thority, but whether ne, refused to
agree to the correction of a manifest
injustice to exemption district No: 2;
and whether this refusal was a link
in the chain Of proof that what has
often been charged-not by the Scot
tish Chief as Mr.. Johnson charges
that a system exists to concentrate
ty seat? This belief has been SO
firmly fixed in the minds Of So large
number of the voters of the outlying
districts that it was found impossible
to get favorable vote for "good
roads," something we all long for.
The facts are as follows:
The policy of the authorities was
fixed to deduct from the draft quota
those who had enlisted prior to be-
ing called. This apportionment was
made to Robson county before the
county was districted and on account
of the Lumber Bridge company 60
ing in body these men were credited
alike to the two districts, while they
should in equity be credited to the
district in which they resided. The
board of district No. tried to have
this justice done to their district,
they, as we understand it ,have the
information which Mr.. johnson pleads
he lacked, and upon it's presentation
! to General Young's office, those in
charge agreed to recommend the cor
| rection to the provost marshal general
if the two boards would agree, and
according to our source of lnforma-
ton, now corroborated by Mr.. John
! son himself, the injustice remains
and a number of young men are liable
! to give their lives to the country's ser
vice, in the place Of others, because
of Mr.. Johnson's refusal based he says
upon lack Of information, which was
accessible to him and the absence OF
authority to do-when he was not
asked to do-but to agree upon facts
which the proper authorities could
act. And this Mr.. johnson character
ICES as our "main mis-statement'
made in trying to leave the impression
that he had anything to do with al
lowing credits to the two exemption
boards" A quibble again. There
could have been no usurpation OF au-
thority in the agreement, as Mr.. john
son must know, and that he has re-
: ton is very clear.
tic and deals with motives which he
nis-states. We can take the most
charitable view and say that ignorance
of the character of the Scottish Chief
and not a desire to attribute base
motives caused the paragraph here
alluded to. Mr.. johnson is one of the
few prominent men of the county who
is not a patron Of this paper and ne
evidently only knows Of it when his
attention is ''called to (what he ina.
gines) personal allusion to him
self" We wish here to say that the
offending editorial, as was doubtless
clear to meet readers, was not aimed
at Mr.. Johnson personally, but the al
legged System" which we have here.
tofore tried to believe unfounded d-as
stated in the article itself. 1t is abso-
lutely untrue and only ignorance anc
recklessness of statement can accuse
this paper of the character Mr.. John
son assumes for it. It has opinions
and maintains them. 1t criticises pub
lie acts Of public men, favorably OF
otherwise as it seems to the editor
just-but we never write with the
purpose Of stirring up stife, "parti
sanship and dividing the people of the
county," whom we are always free te