J THE ELKIN TRIBUNE
AWI» RBWFmO RRCORT)
Published Every Thursday by
RLK PRI\TIN(i (COMPANY, Inc.
Elklo. N. C.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1933
Entered at the poat office at Elkin. N. C. f as
second-class matter.
C. S. FOSTER - - .President
JUL, F. LAFFOON Secretarjr-TreaMrer
SUBSCRIPTION RATES, PER YEAR
la the State, #1.50 Out of the State, f2.00
What, for instance, would the Technocrats
do with Huey Long?
Remember when General Haig announced
that "our backs are to the wall ?" But it wasn't
a tariff wall—not then.
Rothwell Brown says "out in lowa the cold
was so intense the thermometer dropped as low
as a farmer's hopes for relief from Congress."
Truth is just about as necessary as salt, but
too much truth, like too much salt, sometimes
plays the devil with things.
Whatever the European nations decide to do
about the gold standard, the "gold-digger" will
continue to get hern in the usual way.
If you ask us the greatest criticism against
this last lame duck congress is not so much be
cause of the lame ducks, for Huey Long is not
one of them.
Bet Huey Long would like to conduct a fili
buster on behalf of his friend Overton, who is
charged with fraud in the same election that sent
Huey to the Senate.
A man knows what he wants and spends his
time trying to get it; a woman knows she wants
something and spends her time trying to find
out what it is.
It is estimated that it will take the inaugural
parade two hours to pass the reviewing stand,
but just think of the wait if all the office-seekers
were tacked on.
What if Mr. Roosevelt on his recent fishing
trip, had landed himself a great big kingfish?
Then he'd have two on his hands without know
ing what to do with either.
Frank Nitti, Capone's friend is to be award
ed a rebate of $250,000 on his income tax, which
is funny when it is remembered that by rights
he bad no business with .the assessed income to
begin with.
Headline says "Twenty-Five Cherry Pies
Stolen From Senate Restaurant." Maybe Ser
geant Barry was right after all. Maybe, too, the
theft should be charged to the advance guard of
the pie brigade.
The Revolt Talk
The pending conferences as to foreign debts
will be in the spotlight soon, but in the mean
time we have pressing problems here at home
that should occupy the time and thought of our
statesmen. The banks and railroads have been
given attention, and that is timely and right, but
only jerky stabs have been made toward the res
toration of prosperity for the unemployed and the
farmers.
We will not have restoration of trade until
there is restoration of the purchasing power of
millions of people who have not that power now.
Farm conditions are anything but satisfactory;
farm products are selling for less than cost of
production, and everyone knows that this is in
tolerable and impossible.
We hear much about revolts among the agri
culturists, and while we do not encourage such
revolts, we can all understand the promptings
toward it. Men with their backs to the wall are
concerned only in fighting their way out, ruth
lessly and without regard to established law, if
necessary.
When suggestion is made that the govern
ment through artificial means may raise the
price of farm products, it is faced with the pro
test that the cost to consumers in the cities and
towns will be increased. The thirty millions on
our farms are dependent; largely upon city con
sumption of their products to live, and it requires
no intricate figuring to establish the fact that
those living in the city are largely dependent up
on the success of their friends on the farm, for
their own sakes. A cut-throat array of farm
against city and city against farm can only end
in the ruin of both.
Beyond a little charity and government re
lief appropriations, nothing has been done for la
bor, and the workers are bordering close to the
revolt stage. William Green, head of the Ameri
can Federation of Labor, in the official organ of
the American Chamber of Commerce, says that
unless something is done, the workers will fight
for their rights, and the ground for his im
patience is that "we gave government every op
portunity to produce a remedy; we gave manage
ment every opporunity to produce a remedy; we
gave finance every opporunity. Finally, after
three years of suffering, we, the organized work
ers, declare to the world 'enough'; we shall use
our might to compel the plain remedies withheld
by those whose misfeasance caused our woe."
Green was not talking about a re
sort to violence nor turning on our form of gov
ernment, but he means that government and
business must make themselves more responsive
to human needs and human misery.
The Commission's Recommendations
If our legislators hoist the iniquitous general
sales tax to the shoulders of our people, it cannot
be said that they were not warned. The pres? of
the state is practically unanimously against it,
and the humble country weekly, along with its
big city brother, have each spoken their mind
about it.
The report of the budget-co mmfttee, under
commission to study the state's needs and a way
to meet them, included no recommendation for
a general sales tax. In this connection The Char
lotte Observer says:
"The bidget commission, scanning the whole
horizon and seeking for every available source of
revenue, had one definite and determined objec
tive in mind —that was to balance the budget.
"It was necessary, according to the budget de
partment's figures, that this Legislature provide
110,000,000 above the revenues of the last bien
nium to accomplish this balancing.
"It recommended that, in order to provide
this $10,000,000 with which to bring the budget
into adjustment be set down at $3,000,000 which
would involve a salary cut of 15 per cent upon all
State employes.
"It provided further that $1,150,000 be se
cured through a refunding of bond maturities.
"It recommended that $2,000,000 be trans
ferred from the highway revenues and then it ap
pears not to have specifically recommended any
source from which to secure the remainder, which
is $3,850,000, to replace the property tax of 15
cents which the Legislature was known to be com
mitted to take off.
"In other words, all that is necessary to se
cure in the way of new funds is this equivalent of
the amount hitherto provided through the property
tax.
"In view of these recommendations, it seems
to be no insurmountable task for the Legislature
to get together sufficient revenues, it if were dis
posed to follow the leading of these best minds, in
order to balance the budget and, at the same time,
lay no onerous new taxes upon the people."
But instead of working its broom into dusty
corners in search of hidden taxables that would
turn in the necessary $3,800,000 replacement for
the promised 15-cent property levy abolishment,
the legislature is seriously considering the gen
eral sales tax levy, which it is calculated would
bring in from $12,000,000 to $15,000,000. The
change in school plans, of course, will necessarily
demand variance from the recommendation of the
budget committee which did not have this change
in mind as it considered the state's finances. But
whatever the cause, the burdensome sales tax,
which in the main is to be collected from those
least able to bear it, should not be imposed until
every other possible source of taxation has been
explored.
The Repeal Measure
We are now to have the same opportunity
to vote out prohibition that we had to vote it in.
In the minds of those who have their finger on
the pulse of our people there is little doubt that
the voting out process will succeed. Regardless
of how we feel about it here in North Carolina,
the indications are that the necessary three
fourths of the states will approve the repealer.
But thirsty ones face many impatient days
yet before the oasis in the desert is reached. The
time-limit for ratification by three-fourths of the
states is seven years, but there will be a definite
yes or no, long before that time. Congress will
provide the machinery for calling conventions,
and legislatures of the various states will have
to act.
In the Senate, as was to have been expected,
Robert R. Reynolds, junior senator, who had been
elected on his own wet platform, voted an em
phatic aye, while Senator Josiah W. Bailey voiced
his approval only because the platform of his
party called for repeal.
When North Carolina comes to make her
decision about repeal, there will be many sur
prises one way and another. There is no dis
counting the fact that public sentiment in this
state as expressed at the polls last November, in
dicate an about-face on the liquor question, but
when it comes to make final decision for repeal,
hesitating ones may feel the urge to free their
shoulders of the responsibility of bringing liquor
back to the open.
Carter Glass, one of the outstanding mem
bers of the Senate,, voted against the measure,
for the good and sufficient reason that his col
leagues failed to provide the Federal government
with police powers over the sale of liquors with
specific outlaw of the saloon. His party platform
may not have been so explicit, but from every
stump Democratic leaders pledged themselves
against the return of the saloon, and if the party
intent is anti-saloon, it would seem that there is
no inconsistency in putting it down in black and
white.
Whiskery Methods
The Senate Committee investigating charges
of fraud against the Huey P. Long machine, have
unearthed political tactics that are noteworthy
chiefly because they are so hoary with age.
For instance all candidates for congress
from one congressional district had entered the
race merely as dummies in order that they might
name election commissioners favorable to the
Long faction. All of them withdrew before
election day.
It is also interesting to note the type of men
who offered themselves for this important post.
One of them was a grass cutter on the Mississippi
levees, another was an insect exterminator, and
another a lawyer, accustomed to drawing $99 per
month from his city «ia a meat inspector.
That Senator Long has built his machine
from the ground up, is apparent from the fact
that he has a reserve of grass cutters, insect ex
terminators and sorry lawyers who inspect meats
for their main support, and collect an occasional
fee from their professional activities..
TWB ELKIN TRIBUNE. ELKIN, NORTH CAROLINA
■" 1 1 ■
Into Harness Again - B y Albert r. Rmd
Yadkin County Superior Court
Criminal Term—Hon. Michael Schenck, Judge Presiding
This calendar should not be a guide for
the witnesses to go by. They are required
to appear on the day they are summoned.
All cases not appearing on this calendar,
defendants and witnesses required to attend
court until case is disposed of.
TRIAL DOCKET
Monday, February 27, 1933
No. 1. State vs. M. G. Ray
No. 2. State vs. Delmer Southard
No. 3. State vs. C. A. Lineback
No. 4. State vs. C. A. Lineback
No. 5. State vs. Rob Hutchens
No. 6. State vs. Rob Hutchens
No. 7. State vs. Rob Hutchens
No. 8. State vs. Rob Hutchens
No. 9. State vs. Rob Hutchens
No. 10. State vs. Rob Hutchens
No. 11. State vs. Rob Hutchens et al
No. 12. State vs. Jim Kirk
No. 13. State vs. Jim Kirk
No. 14. State vs. Weldon Chappel et al
No. 15. State vs. Guy McCreary
No. 16. State vs. Bloom Shore
No. 17. State vs. Elmer Mcßride
No. 18. State vs. Graybill Prevette
No. 19. State vs. Raymond Holcomb
No. 20. State vs. John Martin
No. 21. State vi». B. A. Salmons
No. 22. State vs. Curtis Reavis
No. 23. State vs. James Crater et al
No. 24. State vs. Lee Plowman et al
No. 25. State vs. Dewey Southard
No. 26. State vs. Linnie White et al
No. 27. State vs. Dulan Williams et al
No. 28. State vs. Wesley Dobbins
No. 29. State vs. Wesley Dobbins
No. 30. State vs. Dave Jester et al
No. 31. State vs. Jack Reed
No. 32. State vs. Ray Craver
No. 33. State vs. Henry Caudle
No. 34. State vs. Henry Caudle
No. 35. State vs. Ellis Spillman et al
No. 36. State vs. Ellis Spillman
Tuesday, February 28, 1933
No. 37. State vs. Lee Plowman
No. 38. State vs. Odell Davis
No. 39. State vs. Burrus Sale
No. 40. State vs. Edgar Reavis et al
No. 41. State vs. Ted Rhoads
No. 42. State vs. Kipp Jarvis,
No. 43. State vs. Kipp Jarvis
No. 44. State vs. Grover Glenn
No. 45. State vs. Anderson Miller
No. 46. State vs. Carl Cooper et al
No. 47. State vs. Mrs. Minnie Wishon
No. 48. State vs. J. A. Clampet
No. 49. _ State vs. Felix Edwards
No. 50. State vs. Roy Holcomb
No. 51. State vs. Fred King et al
No. 52. State vs. E. L. Pinnix
No. 53. State vs. W. S. Alexander et al
No. 54. State vs. Willis Dixon et al
No. 55. State vs. Preacher Cheek et al
No. 56. State vs. Ellis Parks
No. 57. State vs. Vance Hutchens et al
No. 58. State vs. Raymond Pinnix
No. 59. State vs. W. H. Hobson
Attend Elkins Half-Dollar Days
$ Event Friday
Thursday, February 23, 19S8
Wednesday, March 1, 1933
No. 60. State vs. N. P. Bryant
No. 61. State vs. Ranee Parker
No. 62. State vs. Early Adams et al
No. 63. State vs. Larry Lyall et al
No. 64. State vs. Harrison Pinnix
No. 65. State vs. B. A. Salmons
No. 66. State vs. Jim McKnight
No. 67. State vs. L. H. Williams
No. 68. State vs. Frank Hutchens et al
No. 69. State vs. Dallas Bauguess et al
No. 70. State vs. George Gough et al
No. 71. State vs. Melvin Tucker et al
No. 72. State vs. John Clampet
No. 73. Statg vs. Frank Martin
No. 74. State vs. M. W. Evans
No. 75. State vs. Jim Miller
No. 76. State vs. Chap Hobson et al
No. 77. State vs. Charlie Martin
Thursday, March 2, 1933
No. 78. State vs. Luke Stokes
No. 79. State vs. Reece Hutchens et al
No. 80. State vs. Reece Hutchens
No. 81. State vs. Jean Taylor et al
No. 82. State vs. Clement Chappel
No. 83. State vs. Ted Johnson et al
No. 84. State vs. O. L. Shaw
No. 85. State vs. Theodore Jordon
No. 86. State vs. Harry H. Barker
No. 87. State vs. Harry H. Barker
No. 88. State vs. S. T. Whitaker
No. 89. State vs. Harvey Martin
No. 90. State vs. James McKnight et al
No. 91. State vs. Clifford Carter
No. 92. State vs. Mrs. Frank Howell
No. 93. State vs. L. F., Sink
No. 94. State vs. Tommie Coram
No. 95. State vs. Bill Taylor
No. 96. State vs. Claude Ingram
No. 97. State vs. Ernest Young et al
WARRANT DOCKET
Friday, March 3, 1933
No. 103. State vs. Lloyd Taylor
No. 104. State vs. Gilmer Casstevens et al
No. 105. State vs. Jack Vestal
No. 106. State vs. B. R. Crater
No. 107. State vs. Gorrell Glenn
No. 108. State vs. H. E. Swaim
No. 109. State vs. Thad Swaim
No. 110. State vs. Van D. Matthews
No. 111. State vs. W. H. Shermer
No. 112. State vs. Elbert Collins et al
No. 113. State vs. H. G. Johnson
No. 114. State vs. Will Williams
No. 115. State vs. Buck Nicks
No. 116. State vs. F. P. Michael
No. 117. State vs. Jack Gentry
No. 118. State vs. George Bauger
No. 119. State vs. Reuben Brown
No. 120. State vs. W. O. Shore
No. 121. State vs. Dillard Dezern
No. 122. State vs. Buford Brown
No. 123. State vs. Lucy Lindsay et al
No. 124. State vs. Aionzo Plowman
No. 125. State vs. W. B. Holleman
No. 126. State vs. Joe Brooks
No. 127. State vs. Ervin Prim
No. 128. State vs. E. J. C. Myers