Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1856-12-25
\. WH1TE,
WM. C. BLACK.


Messrs. Editors On my arrival home, found
the above il-naturcd communication in type ; and
I now find myself very much at loss what sort
of reply to make to it. No one can be more
unwilling than nm that the unfortunate suggcs-
ton in regard to the revival of the slave trade
should be permitted "to divide and distract the
people of the State" But would q crude and i'll
digested report, made up in the hurly-burly of
session time, close the subject? Would it not
have induced an equally crude, illdigested, and
badly timed debate, and made confusion 'worse
confounded?" Again. because question is i'm
portant does it follow that the verdict must be
hasty one Does it not rather seem that the de-
cision should, therefore, be carefully and thor
oughly elaborated? To tell the whole truth, the
Legislature adopted the only decent way of get
ting clear of the question:; and fortunately for
the country, Messrs. Whyte and Black and those
who voted with them were in the minority. The
result will be that, henceforh and fovevcr, you
will hear no more of the slave-trade. I would
Committee have now the slightest idea of ever
making a report. 1t was one of those delicate
maneuvres which Legislators sometimes resort to;
and in not observing the game, Messrs. Whytc and
Black were simply "sold." That's ALL
The other paragraph about your "cOrrespon-
dent" is mysterious. Il puzzles me. The idea
that the expression of an opinion by me, as au edi
tor or q correspondent is to he regarded as ''fore-
stalng" any one or, in this instance, as an at
tempt to ''forcstull" Messrs. Whyte and Black, is
utterly ridiculous; especially so, as l advanced
the same opinion in previous issue, before had
any Indication whatever of the course they design
ed to pursue. Can they mean that |, as Journ-
alist, must hold my opinions in allegiance until
the public are thoroughly advised as to their ideas
of things? Or, do they mean that and the pcO-
pie generally must take their opinions rs final and
conclusive? No. They "bcg leave to judge for
hemselves'-a privilege I have never called in
question-and they surely allow me and their con-
stituents to do likewise. And why do they say
that they chad as good an opportunity OF know
ing for what they voted as lad your correspon-
dent? have never doubted their opportunities,
or charged them with the remarkable ignorance
of not knowing 'for what they voted" This, l
take it, is not a disputed point? But what is the
disputed point? What do you mean to say, gen.
tlemen? If you designed to say anything parti-
cuar in that paragraph it is certainly badly writ
ten !; and that, too, in contemptuous, .a'ngin3
sort of style which is manifestly unbecoming, and
entirely unworthy of the dignity and position you
hold as gentlemen
They meant to say something. Messrs. Editors,
and didn't say it. Perhaps they are offended be-
cause l, as your very humble correspondent, ven
tured to tell the people how they voted and 'for
what they voted. Do they question the right
of the people to be informed on such matters, or
my right to impart the information? Surely not
They, for themselves, have the undoubted right OF
explaining their votes, and with this they ought,
in all conscience, to be content ..
I have learned, in conversation, that Messrs
Wbyte and Black have applied to themselves my