Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1856-01-23
20 the Editor of the Edre6ela Aauerti,er i:

4g.T
Total 1885, 6S2! ]0SQI
+, To the Editor of the Edge6eld Advertiser: ii.
SlR-We feel much hatered and truly grateful for
the admiration which Mr.. TitLMAN has so gracefully
expressed as TO the exhibition Of our "spirt, and
cleverness" in the jealous defence" Of profess
sion and let him now be assured that it will afford
US much pleasure to recprocato his kindness, before
We close The present article. ...s,
We regret 10 learn that" the merit OF our production
is seriously marred by the two frequent use Of ungen-
erous eplhets, "such as would be statesman" mo-
dern Ishmael" and the like" Since he objects to
the epithet of "would be statesman," we shall en-
deayor to make the amende honorable, by refraning
from It's future use, as do wish to be regarded
as ignoring or overlooking his lately achieved honors,
and the unanimous concession of all parties to his
Just title, of being ranked among the distinguished
Statesmen of our common country. We had the
pleasure of hearing his brilliant effort on the Electoral
Bills to which, in his reply, with his characteristic
modesty he alludes. We have observed with delight
the golden opinions which he won, and Of his having
covered himself, all over, with immortal glory.
He adds, " that hard names are not arguments, and
the former are much easier produced than the latter.
Now We frankly confess, that in our comment upon his
romarks, we adopted the Homeopathic treatment, the
maxim of which is simEia similibus," not thinking
the malady required any stronger or more active
specific.
The explanation that he has given of his apparent
contradictory sentences, receive, but deslst
from reerating, that, it previously stood, We gave
it fair and liberal Interpretation; and we are moi
fully satisfied that the explanation has not The ear
marks Ct having been an after thought.
lie admits that according to our construction OF the
from the act thai large DISfTicIs Increased nguT0H
and tina, instead of seeking business themselves bus
ness brought TO them, we had &c just cause 10 be
offended with him." We are much pleased TO find
that he repudiales such Interpretation; but at the
same time beg to assure him, that construction wa,
not soecism and that it occurred to others, whose
time is devoted to the determining of the proper mean
ing of sentences. He will bear in mind that we have
no way Of arriving at what lie said at Aiken, bn
from The report, and from the most natural consruc
tion to infer his meaning. His argument as explained
reads thus -
/" One reason why Lawyers in large judicial Dis.
trcis would oppose division is that they averse tc
circuit riding, and desire ~ have business brought tc
them, instead Of being compelled to leave their home:
and 60 10 It."
Now this appears to our mind to be nothing more
than matter Of TASTE Some might prefer 10 stay al
home, others might consider it quite pleasant change
to their monotonnus routine of life hence it can moi
be brought forward as an argument, for or against
division.
He asks elf large Judicial Districts do not increase
litigaon and iflawyers not nverse TO circuit rid
ing, why is "JuNroR" opposed to division !" Now
the vericst tyro in political controversy would blush
to own the paternity Of such a transparent piece OF
trickery lie evidences, when he attempts to assign
US position, for or against division. We have stndi.
olsy avoided the discussion Of this question, except
20 far as we were compelled in order TO argue the
point t'at Issue between us. The following extract
from our first piece will verify our intention:
{" We waive the discussion Of The formation Of new
Districts and the consequent increase Of Our political
influence 10 older and more experienced men.
Now we have done so from no disposition to eva'ie
the question, but from these facts, that we have been
but short time citizen OF this District-taat We
know but little of its topography, hut few Of its cti.
zens, and that we not in possession OF sufficient
facts Of the case 10 form enlightened opinion And
rs we do not wish to pin our faith to any one, for We
claim to be no mans man, have declined the dis
ciissun.
We have now arrived at the main point at issue
between Mr.. TILLMAN and ourself. He asserts that
Lawyers as body wonId oppose division, because
they are competitors for Offices in the gift of the
Legislature, which was under the control Of the Pa
h.;t h,o haaD piDcp snh m
our reply to this truthful assertion, We will quote
il:
"A the Offices in the gift of the Legislature are
conferred by joint ballot Of the Senate and House
of Representatives, except those petty offices, the
duties of which are confined to the House and Senate
There are seventy -four District and fifty Parish votes
in the House. In lle Senate the District votes stand
twenty-five 10 twenty.three Parish, giving a majority
of twenty.three to the Districts. Hence 1t will be
perceived that instead of the Legislature lin eleconsl
being under the control of the Parishes, is just tho
reverse"
At the last Session of the Legislature Snmper District
was divided into two Districts, under the names Of
Sumper and Clarendon, each entitled to Senator
The former 10 three, the latter to two Representatives.
These we formerly gave to the Parishes. Att the next
Session Pickens District will be entitled to Senator,
which will make the vote stand thus: In the House
seventy District and G-ty.fve Parish. In the
Senate twenty-five District to twenty-one Parish,
giving majority joint ballot TO the Districts of
thirty eight votes. He replies TO this by saying,
" forgo, that each House of the Legislature has
ncga.i,e on the otler.' Admitting that each house
has negative upon the other in nl acts of LegisIu-
ton we wish him to prove 10 us the existence Of that
negative when the two Houses unite in elections All
Legislative assemblies, composed oftwo Houses, have
checks and negatives upon each other. Congress has,
and so has the Parliament Of Great Britain.
He further says we forgot that although the Dis.
rics lave far more territory, wealth, white popula-
on or slaves than the Parishes that yet the latter
have majority in the Senate and always control it."
Admitting The statistical facts and that in our former
calculation we gave the Senate majority of one,
we have shown ut The next Session there will be
majority of four in the Senate, and thiry.our in the
House in favor of the Districts. We would ask him
what has this to do with the comforting Of Offices, in
the gift of the Legislature7
He also says we "forgot the Parishes are ever
united against us, because they wish 10 retain The po
litica power which rightly belongs 10 the rp.counry,