The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1878-05-09
i LITTLE PALMER TALK.

Inc NcUo QNU CUuFtcf tsahSS w sn0
cudgels for the defense Of Charleston in
season and out of season, and frequently
SLOWS its fervid imagination to conceive
that because uncomplimentary remarks
are made by one paper, or some cores
.pondent, that Others are also attacking;
and at such times our contemporary is
dangerous to the brotherhood, for with a
zeal far greater than its judgment, it
makes sweeping fight, without discrim.
mating as to where it will infict its
heay blows. In an article headed "a
Little Plain Talk, it commits this mis-
take by chasing our editorial of last
week on Hampton and the Up-Country"
With the remarks of q correspondent of
the Edgefeld advertiser, and to give the
appearance of. justice to its structures
upon the INrELLIaENcEg, it garbles up
our editorial and quotes just enough of
it to produce the impression, where it
has not all been seen, that We had made
ferocious attack upon Charleston, while
as matter of fact we did nothing Of the
kind, but simply took up for our own
section, and in doing so criticised one
man and his clique who live in Charles
ton, but fortunately do not compose the
people of Charleston, nor do they repre-
sent them in che views they entertain of
the "up-country." Instead of doing
Charleston "a gross wrong" or making a
"coarse condemnation Of Charleston" or
expressing any prejudice against Charles
ton, as the Neus and Courier charges, we
complimented the people of that city,
and expressed an admiration for their
demeanor in contest in which they
we're opposed by immense odds. Ifo
contemporary could not discover this, it
must have been because he had guessed
what the article was going to be before
he read it, and allowed his expectations
to get the better of his understanding.
In reading editorials from the country
press, we would suggest that it would be
well for the Ne,us and Courier to keep
cool, 80 as to base its comments in reply
upon what the articles contain, aud not
attribute the same sentiments to two to-
tally different articles. In our article
we alluded to Mr.. Memminger's course
in the General Assembly, because the
article of the Springfield Republican was
evidently written under the inspiration
of some person entertaining such views
as he had expressed. The article was
not written from an acquaintance with
our people, and the information it was
based upon was not only incorrect, but
in some respects it sayors strongly of
prejudice, if not Of malice. We did not,
however, charge it upon Charleston, and
the whole of our article shows clearly
that we entertain none Of the prejudice
of which the Meaos and Courier speaks.
We know that there are some men in
Charleston, just as there are in other
places, who have their strong local pre-.
judiees, and whenever it appears to US
that these prejudices are directed at a
people we represent, We shall not hesi-
tate to criticise them as we think they
deserve, even if it does g. lte upon the
feelings of some newspaper which has
to "sneeze when they take snuff"
We are fully aware that newspapers
are not responsible for the contents Of
copied articles, but at the same time it il
also equally patent to all who are &C"
quainted with the News and Courier that
whenever anything is said about South
Carolina with which it does not agree, it
is not slow to express its disapprobation.
If MIR. Clarke had criticised the low
country, we will guarantee that the pub
lie would have known how the Nescs and
Courier liked it. It has not chosen to
tell US how it considers the article about
the up-country, but as it goes on to give
reasons for the opinions expressed in it,
We presume that it agrees with the SLAM
der of the up-country which the article
contains. If this presumption is not
correct, we invite our contemporary to
correct us, and give its views upon the
matter. What the Ne,us and Courier
says about the Usury Law and the State
debt, is only the ventilation of little
ill.feeling about these subjects, and