The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-04-28
THE WILLIAMSBURG TRAGEDY.
"Amicus'' and the .:.Papers.''
lFrorn the wIlllamsburg star.l

We observe in TIE CHARLESTON NEWS, OF
the 18th Instant, a communication over the sigma
ture or 'Amcus," In relation to the recent homi-
eide in this district. 1t is not our habit to notice
anonymous communications, and were 1t not for
the grave charges made BY this writer we should
remain silent. We write under our proper name,
without the advantage or desire OF keeping con-
cealed from the public our opinion on any subject,
and, therefore, cannot be accused OF double-deal.
ing on any question Of public moment. 1t re-
quires some nerve to do this, as popular senti-
ment is craved by most men, though they may
not be possessed OF the manllness to obtain 1t in
an open and undisguised manner.
"Amicus' says: zone side OF the SC. called Shock
ing tragedy at Kingstree' has been put forth in
OF determination TO take the lives OF three men,
right or wrong, for that OF one who acted In such
manner as legitimately to forfeit his own llfe.n
The terms 'papersn can be construed very COM
prehensively in Its application; and to what par
ticular "papersn this writer refers Is probably
only known to himself. 1t certainly would have
been very little trouble to have called them by
name, and would have been much more satlsfac-
tory to those for whom 1t was intended; but being
the conductor OF the paper published In the dis
trtct where the occurrence took place, and In
which was printed an account OF the same, 1t Is
inferrable ut least that we are included In the
number alluded TO. II 80. and the writer intends
TO impute to us any such design as Is expressed
in the above quotation, we repel 1t as entirely
gratuitous, unjust, ungener0us and unfounded.
We disclaim any desire, motive or intention in
the remarks that we made concerning that un-
fortunate AFFAIR, to prejudice public sentiment
either one way or the other. We have an indis.
putable right to narrate the particulars, as we
learned them from the Sicorn evidence before us,
whether they presented "one-sdedn view or
not. We did not make the evidence, neither did
We pervert II. Indeed, we chose not to repeat
what was in our possession, but referred to the
transaction In as guarded and impartial terms as
we could, In giving the circumstances as related
to us by those who acted officially at the corener's
investigation.
"Amicus,'' while charging the "papers" with
endeavoring to prejudice public opinion against
Mr. Brown, falls into the very error that he would
have the public believe he is anxious to correct.
legitimately to forfeit his own life.n Uould any
stronger language than this be used In justifca.
tion OF the course pursued In the matterf Did
we say that Mr.. Brown acted in such manner as
legltlmately to forfeit his own lfeP ?" We did not
utter one syllable against Mr.. Brown. We made
no charges against any one.
We do not believe that any gentleman who
knows us will impute to us such low. base and
malignant nature as could only belong to one who
would even countenance, much less be instru-
mental In "a determination to take the lives OF
three men, right or wrong.n This ls grave
charge and one that has been made unprov0ked
by us. We have suffered no personal injury, and
have no personal wrongs to redress, and why
should we be accused OF such moral obliquity In
matter that Is to be adjudlcated, not by public
side or the other, but under the sacred sanctlty
OF an oath administered to those who will sit In
judgment, divested, we trust, Of all influences
which do not pertain to their duties. We say,
falIn