Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1873-10-23
THE RAILROAD QUESTION, AGAIN.

single point at issue, but devotes two of its
ample columns to tumid effort, conveying
neither wit nor argument. At this we are not
little surprised. We confidently imag-
ined that mind capable of originating the
wonderful and happy conception that "Char-
lotte, and not Chester, is the proper market
for the productions of the Catawba valley"
would, when occasion offered, startle the world
with other and more curious revelations. But
we are sadly disappointed The Observer fails
to rise above the dignity of Mother Goose and
as little insects that depend much on the
warmth of the sun are indefatigable in their
activity, 50 did the Observer bluster and buzz
in the greasy sunshine of its own good humor,
until the very elements Of its activity were
consumed before it could reach the points in
volved in the subject under discussion.
Since the Observer has so utterly failed to
unfold any new facts, we are at a loss as to
whether discussion with it can be proftably
conducted.
True, it does intimate that we made use of
a very trite comparison, which we don't deny.
We did not look so much at the triteness as
at what we happily conceived to be the ap-
propriateness; and when we already perceive
that the mind which gave such cheering evil
dence of expansiveness, has so suddenly COL
lapsed and can furnish nothing in addition to
the one grand idea that "Charlotte, and not
Chester, is the proper market for the pro.
ductions of the Catawba valley" we are con-
tent to let it pass.
But comparisons, however pat and proper,
are sometimes "odious," which fact we recog-
nize when the Observer intimates that the
king of Dahomey is an African and cousin
of Frank Edwards, Colored County Commis.
sioner of York. We did incidentally insti-
tute a comparison between the aforesaid
king and the editor of the Observer, and we
now beg pardon of Frank Edwards, Colored
County Commissioner, for the "irreverent"
comparison with his distinguished kinsman.
So much for side issues and irrelevant points.
We have not denied the Observer the right
State, nor do we essay to manage this enter
prise of two States to the exclusion of the citi-
zens of one of them" This arrogation is
exercised only by the Observer in oficiously
interposing with the affairs of York county.
And while the mental vision of the Observer
remains so obscured as to only discern that
"Charlotte, and not Chester, is the proper
market for the productions of the Catawba
valley" we fear that its reason is blinded by
prejudice, which vitiates all the good advice
and fatherly protection so generousl ly extend
ed to our people,
In our issue of the 9th we proved conclusive.
ly that there is no unanimity of opposition in
York county to the subscription, which the
Observer attempts to controvert only by the
feeble rejoinder -"Certainly, unanimity of
hos .ility in York District cannot be charged,
when three Commissioners, Gone of them a
NEGRo,) have put their hands to the subscrip-
ton, and the editor of the ENQUIRER becomes
its fearless advocated" While we think it
can be shown that there are others who favor
the subscription, We would also correct the
false impression that the Observer wilfully at
tempts to convey, when it charges that we are
the fearless advocate of what it is pleased to
term an act of oppression. We have never
felt called upon to become the "fearless advo-
cate' of the missioners-First, because
the charter clearly grants them authority to
make the subscription, and in so doing they
did not invoke our advocacy; and Secondly,
the matter having gone to the Courts for ad-
Indication, there was no necessity for news
paper discussion in the premises. We are an
advocate of the road. We favor a liberal
system of improvements; but as we said in
our issue of the 9th, to which the Observer
pretends to reply, eff the subscription is ille-
gal, and was made without warrant of author
ity, let the act of the Commissioners be abro-
gated and set aside by the Courts. We would
not, in the columns of the ENQUIRER, know
ingly endorse wrongful or illegal official
act, however great might be the boon it would
confer" If the Observer was so anxious to
quote from the ENQUIRER, why did it not
produce our own language and give our true
position on the question?
As to the Observers fustian about our fail
ure to demonstrate against the County Com
missioners making subscription, and our
willingness to "abide the decision of a parti-
san Judge, radical Of the deepest dye," we
have only to say, so far as the Bipartisan
Judge" is concerned, there was none other to
render decision nor are we responsible for
his political opinions. We are not aware,
however, that partisan or political feeling en-
ters into the question. The board Of Com
missioners that Unanimously put their hands
to the subscription represent both political
parties, while voters throughout the county,
of either party, are not opposed to the sub
scription. Among the names of those who
enjoined the Commissioners are there no trad.
icals"-no negroes? Were the plaintiffs to
the suit actuated by political bias? Does the
whole question depend, at last, upon political
feeling and must the people be deprived Of a
"good thing" simply because it has advocates
in both parties? Or shall the scheme fail be.
cause it does not meet the approval of the
Charlotte Observer?
We did not demonstrate" against the
Commissioners for the reason that under the
charter of the company, the County Commits
sioners are the "proper authorities" of the
county, and by the provisions of the charter,
through them only, could legal county sub.