The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1872-03-13
The Circulation of the Press
and Banner in Abbeville
County is five times greater
than that of any other
journal.
THE COUNTY ADVERTISEMENT
REPLY.

THE COUNTY ADVERTISING-OUR
REPLY.
The last issue of the A6bevil2e Medium
contains, what purports to be an answer
to our article on the subject of The County
advertising, and although we are AFRAID
of wearying the patience of our readers,
with what might seem to be personal
controversy, yet as we believe 1t in
wolves a principle which affects their
interest as well as ours, We will crave
their indulgence for brief reply to the
Issues made in the article of the Medi-
un,, so far as we can gather them from
its rambling and somewhat incoherent
statements. In doing 80
We viU seek to avoid the fttlsonae SELF
Iduddtion, so chdrdctertSt'c V
our contemporary,
and which so often brings to mind the
lines of the Scottish bard:
Owad some power the giftie gle us,
tn zee ourseps as Others see us!
Tt wad frae monte blunder free US
An foolish notion"
To those who have read our article, 1t
will be unnecessary to say, that the only
issues presented by us were,-lst, that
the County officers named-to wit the
School Commissioner, the Judge Of
Probate, and the County Commission=
ers--in giving q monopoly Of their off,
cial advertising to one of the County
papers, had acted contrary to the uni
form practice of their predecessors-and
2d to the prejudice of the best inter-
est of the people of the County-and
Sd that IN declining to accede to our pro-
position to share the advertising, the
conductors of the Medium had failed to
exhibit that liberality, which would
best commend them to the public favor.
Our. charge had "this extent; no
more ~ yet the Medium without at
tempting to meet fully the facts charged,
or contr0vert distinctly the positions as
sumed, seeks to raise new and 1rreie-
want issues, by way Of "hue and cry"-
to wit, that we were seeking to gain our
ends, 1st, by ''abuse" of 1.-THE inetli-
cheney and bad character of our public
officers ~ and I'd, by assailing the NE
dun, for offences which it had never
committed" and by impeaching its
character as IAN elevated and high
toned journal" The alleged charges
exist only in the writer's imagination.
We used no epilhets we made no inn
putations; but stated facts and left the
public to draw their own conclusions
and the attempt now to divert attention
from the points of controversy, is but
The sueak refuge OF q feeble and failing
.,.. ... cause.
1. Has the Medium denied, and can it
deny. that in giving the monopoly of
county advertising to one paper, and
that with the smaller circulation, the
officers named have acted In disregard
of the official precedent set by their pre-
decessors, and of which the Medium
would have been the most eager perhaps
to avail itself, but for our altered politi-
cal relations? 1t neither has denied
nor can deny it.
II. What does the Medium say to our
charge that by giving such monopoly OF
the advertising, to one of the papers,
the officers named, were acting to the
prejudice of the best interests of the
people. "Only this, and nothing
more.' "Fhe County officers, we pre-
sume, have control Of their own affairs,
and that they see fit to give the Medium
advertisements is positively nobody's
business but their own" "Most lame
and impotent conclusion" Will the
readers of the Medium endorse that
doctrine?
Are public Officers indeed autocrats,
who are indeed responsible to them
selves alone, and who are independent
of public oplnion2 If that be the doc
trine now, it was not the doctrine of
earlier, and shall we not say, of better
days? A public officer is the servant of
the people, and his official conduct is the
proper subject OF legitimate criticism.
He may not have violated any public
statute; the law itself may be defective;
but when even when complying with
the letter, he defeats the spirit Of the
law, the officer is amenable, if to no
other tribunal, at least to that Of public
opinion.
To the bar of public opinion we ap-
peal, and are prepared to discuss our
proposition, if it be not too plain for
controversy, that public officers best
carry out the spirit of the law, perform
their official duty in this respect, and
subserye the interests of the people,
when they recognize the claims of the
most widely circulated journal, to at
least share of the official Advertising
and that to do otherwise Is to act con-
trary to the spirit of the law, and to
defeat in large measure the ends of
legal publication. The Medium, pro-
fesses to be friend of the people, and
will it gainsay the position, that the
people Of the Corntv, who read Coun-
ty paper, have ali IN equal claim to
knowledge of the acts of the County
officials, through the legalized channels
Of publication !; and that it is the plain
duty of County officials to see that the
information is most widely dissemina-
ted throughout the County9 And will
the County officers above named con-
tend for . moment that an intimation
of desire or inter ton on their part to
adhere to the precedent set by their
predecessors, would not have secured
the publication of the County notices
in both of the County papers without
additional charge to the. public? BY
what reasons, they have been controlled
in theiraction, is Known best to them
selves, but we submit that the public
will require some better excuse for their
conduct than the answer-"Such Is our
pleasure; we do as we please"
The strength of our argument would
not be effected, even by conceding that
the Medium had an equal circulation in
the County with the Press and Banner,
but additional force is given to it, by
showing large disparity in the circula-
tion of the two papers III favor Of the
latter journal.
Ind no,u ds to the question of CIR;