Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1853-02-16
WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY Is, 1853.
Capt. Brooks and oursels

Tsc communication, which we publish to-day
from Capt. Brooks, has been sent abroad over the
Congressional District with the following predatory
remarks:
The following Communication will appear in the
Advertiser. By course Of mail the communication
could not reach EdgeGeld until Tuesday night. The
Advertiser is published on Wednesday and judging
from the heretofore liberal COURSE Of the Editor to-
wards me in the matter Of this election, am conf
dent my article would have been inserted in this
weeks paper"
We design to write very few words, in reply 10
the charge therein contained and in reference to a
sneering allusion to sheet which We find in the
4 body Of Capt. BIS. article.
We regret that the writer thought proper 20 bring
into this matter al all. But as it has been done,
common self.respect desshnds that should answer
his charges and rcpel his insinuaons. And this We
| propose 10 do very briefly.
The supposun, expressed by Capt BROOKS, that
we would not have published his article in our last
issue even if he had sent it to US by the Columbia
Mail Of Tuesday, is entirely mis-p placed Because,
before that mail reaches Edgefed village, our paper
is almost invariably and in the hands of our town
subscribers and we had supposed Capt Brooks
knew that such was the fact This however would
have been small matter merit attention, had
it stood alone. But in immediate connection with it,
is an ironcal allusion 10 our very liberal" bearing
towards him in the matter Of the present election.
Upon this point We offer the fJlIowing statement of
our course and leave readers to decide for them
selves.
We, with large number Of our fellow-cilizens,
preferred to be represented in the Congress Of the
Union by COL PIcKESs, rather than by Capt.
BRooKs. Our preference, are free TO say,
decided-so much that we felt it 10 be our duty
las it was righp to set forth Col. Ps.' claims
briefly, and uithout depreciation Of others This
did in several short articles all of uhich combined
,Uould not crcecd halcoiumn Of our paper OF tins
preference part, Capt. BROOKS was informed
the very week his name was first announced in the
Advertiser for Congress- And he thus informed
in view of the very election which is comsg on.
1t therefore be pretended that in advocating
the election of oil. PIcKENS, uc have done aught
but what he Capt B.) we'll aware of long since.
Was not all this entirely fair!
But it may be said that published extracts from
other papers, in furtherance OF Col. PIcKENs' pros
poets, while We neglected to publish some extracts
which might have resulted in advancing Capt.
Books election. We do not recall, at this time
more than Two such articles which came 10 our
knowledge One Of these was in the Laurensvie
Herald, nominating Capt. Brooks, saying something
in the way Of compliment, and urging his claims.
The other contributed by some friend of Capt.
BRosKs to the CaroEaian, containing very high
| compliment. There may have been something else in
the Newbery Scntncl-ifso, we do not remember its
tenor. Now ask, il our part to hunt up these
different pieces and put them in OUR paper, when not
one of Capt. Brooks intimate friends thought enough
of the matter even suggest them 10 US Besides, if
memory is not al fault, did no, know Of these
pieces at all until few days before Capt. Brooks
himself appeared in columns in reply TO ''TEN
CITIZENS" and since then he and his friends have
had all the showing they requeSted-qui,e as much as
Col PIcKENs and his friends have had.
AS for Capt. Brooks sneering auson to the evil
age Newspaper" which he asserts has been put in
requisition 10 glorify" Col PIcKESs, We have this
to say First if it is MEANT by the words put in re-
question:" convey the meaning that Col. PIcKEss
exercises any dctation direction the Adrerser
or those connected with it, the inuendo is utterly
groundess.
Secondly, To say that the Advertiser has '.glori
fed" Col. p lin the of alludng to him in terms
beyond what he richly mers, is entirely at variance
with the record.
Thirdly, In reply to the sneer at our Village New
paper" We would simply say, Editor of said Vii.
!age Newspaper" that we are utterly at loss to
know what Capt BROOKS has ever done, or spoken
written, which can by any stretch of fancy justify
him in assuming this dir of superiority in reference
to one who is his contemporary and equal. We
will not surely be accused Of vanity in saying that we
feel " no consciousness Of mental inferiority to him
...-l. II 4
give Village Newspaper" any very remarka-
BILE degree of excellence.
We would add but one remark. We have hitherto
studously avoided writing word of disrespect to-
wards Capt. Brooks. True certain severe structures
have appeared against him in the Advertiseri but,
having exered what influence had towards soften.
ing their asperities, hold oursclf blaelcss in this
matter. !