Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1878-02-21
For the YorkYllle Enquirer.
THE YORK COUNTY INVESTIGATORS.

In the ENQUIRER of the 31st Of January,
your correspondent innocently reviewed the
report signed by two of the commissioners ap.
pointed to "ascertain" the indebtedness of
York county. In the ENQUIRER of the 18th,
as also in the Hampton Herald of the same
date, comes a double barreled rejoinder from
the two commissioners, which the latter organ
styles "digni6ed but singing reply" Its
publication in the Herald, without giving the
article to which it purports to reply, is, so far
as its readers are concerned, the firing of a
blank cartridge at an unseen target. Why
not let the readers Of the Herald have the
article and Judge for themselves whether it is
"snarling" and "splenetic," and whether the
reioinder "efectually turns every position of
H." as its readers are complacently in
formed?
In one particular, at least, the writer agrees
with the organ of the two commissioners. The
reply is very digni6ed so full of dignity, in
fact, that there is room left for little else in
it, except its apparent bad humor, which may
be called "sting ing" in the absence of bet
ter name. Let us see how the issue now
stands as between the article of H." and the
reoinder of the two commissioners, and let
the public make their own verdict.
The article asserts "it is now beyond ques-
ton that they, (the county commissioners
had the legal authority to vote the subscrlp'
ton." The reply does not deny it. 1t asserts
"a ratification (of the bonds) by the RePubli.
can Legislature of 1875 and the Democratic
Legislature of 1877" This is not denied. 1t
asserts, and gives the figures, as to the profits
derived from the subscri ption. They are not
questioned. 1t asserts that the commissioners
we're "never together but two days during the
whole period of the investigation; that it
acted as a sor. of rowing commission, one
member at time interviewing witness in
secret" &c. This charge is confessed in all
its material points. 1t charges two of the
commissioners with prejudging the question
at issue. They admit it. 1t alleges that the
bonds are in the hands of innocent holders.
They admit this, as to many of them. 1t al.
leges that mot voice was raised against the
county making the subscription" at the pub
lie meeting of citizens, and that while the
commissioners did wrong in exercising the
dangerous power conferred upon them by law,
no one charges them with wilful misconduct.
These assertions are not contradicted, but
some of them are sought to be avoided. 1t
asserts that the conclusions of the two com.
missoners are without evidence to support
them. You say This is mere assertion. To
repel it, would require an elaborate argu.
ment," &c. Why not give the argument ?
The article alleges the incompetency of two
commissioners to make a report. You have
not denied it.
The only material issue Of fact between us
now rests upon the assertion that in examining
witnesses er parts and without full heard,
you brought in $50 much of the witnesses
statements as suited the purposes of the COM
mission" You say in reply, that is mere
assertion, and is untrue" I am glad to &C.
cept your disclaimer. You admit, however,