Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Editorial
August 7, 1895
The Durham Recorder
Durham, Hillsboro, Durham County, Orange County, North Carolina
What is this article about?
Satirical editorial by ex-Mayor Brown rebutting accusations in the Orange County Observer of 'spite work' in his lawsuit against Mayor Harris and commissioners over ousting Republican aldermen, defending his actions as duty-bound and refuting claims about bonds and personal motives.
OCR Quality
95%
Excellent
Full Text
"HOLD ON BOSS, TWO SIDES TO A QUESTION."
An editorial, yes, (Gentlemen of the Jury, a real live editorial in the Orange County Observer appeared in issue of August 3, just beneath the flag of our country headed, "Spite Work." Poor old flag, called on to wave over such work! Also in column third on same page an article headed "Brown vs. Harris," which says "ex-Mayor Brown attempted to get the case in the Superior Court next week." Yes gentlemen, and the reason I made a failure was simply because the Hon. Frank Israel Osborn, democrat attorney-general of North Carolina, failed, in my opinion, to do his duty—the duty he had sworn to perform. Now, gentlemen of the Harris jury, as you have returned asking further facts, you shall have them: As you all know, I was defeated for mayor at the last town election: Mr. Harris and seven other democrats were elected: about twelve days after the News and Observer informed the public that the Raleigh aldermen, democrats, had "ousted" two republican aldermen for failure to comply with Section 72—see Harris' code of Orange county. Gentlemen of the Jury, the judge charges you to find the action of the Raleigh democratic aldermen, "Saint Work" not "Spite Work." Again gentlemen, his Honor will charge you that I brought suit in my own name against not only the Honorable Mayor, but the seven commissioners also. "Spite work" forgot to mention this fact. "Brown and Cheek are nice men to bring suit against others for not complying with the law;" in this case Brown and Cheek had nothing to forfeit there was no penalty attached to our failure. "But from what we can learn Cheek is Brown's backer:" Brown is fully able to do his own "backing." both financially and physically when he has Law and Right on his side. Mr. Cheek went on my bond in this case (as he has done time and again for democrats). "We are informed that when Brown approached a man in town to go on his bond for the costs in the suit he was bringing against Harris the man hesitated, and Brown told him that Cheek would go on the bond and pay all costs if the case went against Brown. This, Gentlemen of the Jury, is false, as "the man" will tell you. "He. Brown, told a man in town that it was not only his duty to bring the suit, but it was a pleasure." Why did not the Tale-bearer tell the balance I said in regard to the matter? and tell that I said I had nothing personal against the gentlemen in the suit. Some of the men are my personal friends. I will admit, Gentlemen of the Jury, that I have caught the democratic "itch," and when I have an opportunity to "oust" a democrat out of a public office it will not only be my duty, but my pleasure. Take the case gentlemen and render a verdict according to the facts.
An editorial, yes, (Gentlemen of the Jury, a real live editorial in the Orange County Observer appeared in issue of August 3, just beneath the flag of our country headed, "Spite Work." Poor old flag, called on to wave over such work! Also in column third on same page an article headed "Brown vs. Harris," which says "ex-Mayor Brown attempted to get the case in the Superior Court next week." Yes gentlemen, and the reason I made a failure was simply because the Hon. Frank Israel Osborn, democrat attorney-general of North Carolina, failed, in my opinion, to do his duty—the duty he had sworn to perform. Now, gentlemen of the Harris jury, as you have returned asking further facts, you shall have them: As you all know, I was defeated for mayor at the last town election: Mr. Harris and seven other democrats were elected: about twelve days after the News and Observer informed the public that the Raleigh aldermen, democrats, had "ousted" two republican aldermen for failure to comply with Section 72—see Harris' code of Orange county. Gentlemen of the Jury, the judge charges you to find the action of the Raleigh democratic aldermen, "Saint Work" not "Spite Work." Again gentlemen, his Honor will charge you that I brought suit in my own name against not only the Honorable Mayor, but the seven commissioners also. "Spite work" forgot to mention this fact. "Brown and Cheek are nice men to bring suit against others for not complying with the law;" in this case Brown and Cheek had nothing to forfeit there was no penalty attached to our failure. "But from what we can learn Cheek is Brown's backer:" Brown is fully able to do his own "backing." both financially and physically when he has Law and Right on his side. Mr. Cheek went on my bond in this case (as he has done time and again for democrats). "We are informed that when Brown approached a man in town to go on his bond for the costs in the suit he was bringing against Harris the man hesitated, and Brown told him that Cheek would go on the bond and pay all costs if the case went against Brown. This, Gentlemen of the Jury, is false, as "the man" will tell you. "He. Brown, told a man in town that it was not only his duty to bring the suit, but it was a pleasure." Why did not the Tale-bearer tell the balance I said in regard to the matter? and tell that I said I had nothing personal against the gentlemen in the suit. Some of the men are my personal friends. I will admit, Gentlemen of the Jury, that I have caught the democratic "itch," and when I have an opportunity to "oust" a democrat out of a public office it will not only be my duty, but my pleasure. Take the case gentlemen and render a verdict according to the facts.
What sub-type of article is it?
Partisan Politics
Satire
What keywords are associated?
Brown Vs Harris
Spite Work
Democratic Ousting
Republican Aldermen
Political Lawsuit
Bond Guarantee
Partisan Duty
What entities or persons were involved?
Ex Mayor Brown
Mr. Harris
Frank Israel Osborn
Mr. Cheek
Orange County Observer
News And Observer
Editorial Details
Primary Topic
Defense In Brown Vs. Harris Lawsuit Against Spite Work Accusations
Stance / Tone
Defensive Satirical Rebuttal
Key Figures
Ex Mayor Brown
Mr. Harris
Frank Israel Osborn
Mr. Cheek
Orange County Observer
News And Observer
Key Arguments
Failure In Case Due To Attorney General's Neglect Of Duty
Democratic Aldermen Ousted Republicans Under Section 72, Called 'Saint Work' Not 'Spite Work'
Lawsuit Brought Against Mayor And All Seven Commissioners
No Penalty For Brown And Cheek's Non Compliance
Brown Self Reliant, Cheek's Bond Support Mutual
False Claim About Inducing Bond With Cheek's Guarantee
Suit Brought As Duty And Pleasure, No Personal Animosity
Willing To Oust Democrats From Office Reciprocally