The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1878-05-16
ouGKT WE TO DIsBAND3

have recently Obtained lodgniens IN
the political creed of Capt. VIM. D.
Eyins. The article this week bsgius
With illusions to the sins of omission
aud of commission, of which the INTEh-
LIeENcER has been guilty, according to
his views, aud it may be amusing to e1-
smine the justice of them seriatim.
Capt. Eyins' article last week was
indeed addressed to the Nelcs and Cou-
rser, aud had the preliminary mole of
which he speaks, but we did not deem it
proper to publish that portion of it, be-
Z cause it did not appear in the NescS and
Courier, and was, to all inteuts and pur-
poses, an original communication to the
INTELL1GENcER. Whatever may have
been The authors previous intention
about the article, that intention, when it
came to us, was clearly to insert it in the
); INTELLIaEECER, and provoke discus
sion in this County," and therefore the
.Ne,cs and Courier had no connection with
the matter, and we did not mention it.
Moreover, Capt Evins knew exactly
what had been done with his, article,
because he read the proof sheet, and as
he did not make any alterations or sug-
gestions on this point, he assented to it,
and his present course is the merest sub
Stifuge toinduce belief that We unwar-
rantably changed his article, when, as q
matter of fact he knew all about it, and
did not in the least signify his objection,
which, we have no doubt, is entirely an
Z aftes-thought. But it is strange that he
should claim exemption from criticism
on the ground that he intended to pro-
woke discussion in the State instead of
the County. If his article is ipjudicious
for the County, it IL SO for the State also,
and should be equally severely criticised
in either case. What the gentleman
means when he says that it was agreed
to discuss the article "suavitcr IN mod" /"
and with liberality, is an enigma 10 as.
When he handed in the first article, be-
fore we had even read it, he remarked
that he supposed We would not be too
severe on his article, and we replied that
we would make such comment upon the
article rs we thought it deserved, but
that ne would keep our temper in the
discussion. This We have done, and as
the gentleman chooses to call in mere
casual Conversation, We would ask, Is it
not strange that q man would ask quar-
ter for his article before it had even been
read? Is it not strange that a person
possessing strong and sincere convictions
as to the right should be afraid to have
the matter discussed, without endeayor-
ing TO prevent full and free criticism? ?
Does he not show some apprehension as
to the correctness of his own views?
Next, he complains that We did not
give him certificate of honor and vir-
tue. Was such a thing ever heard Of
beforea Is it necessary for man to
have his record endorsed by Others when
he gets into q discussion7 1t would
have been grstuitous presumption for US
to have said, "Capt. Eyins is man of
good character" and rs we said nothing
to the contrary he cannot complain Of us
Justly for not complimenting him as
highly as he no doubt thinks he deserves.
He is also entirely mistaken in saying
that we; called his article foolish. We
only said that he asked the Democratic
party to do foolish thing. He thinks
we went Outside of the proper limit of
debate to refer to the loss of his re,olu-
tions in the Anderson Club. Of course
he does. he did not wish that known,
but it has salwsys,been our rule to give
all the facts about any matter in debate
that the people may fully understand its
merits. he says there was a small at
tendance at the Club meeting. 1t was
such an attendance as the gentleman
was willing to submit his resolutions to.
and surely be is not willing to Admit
that he attempted to take advantage Of
the Club by urging his new scheme upon
it when there were not enough persons
present to give fair expression OF the
opinion of the Club.
What he says about the Executive
Committee is already understood BY the
people. They have no authority about
primary elections, and attempted to e1-
8 excise none. They only recommend
certain things with view of having
them discussed in each locality. Of
course the Committee believe in the
action they recommended, but not one
of them wishes any County to adopt
those suggestions, if it prefers some
other course.
This, we believe, concludes the review
of the principal personal thrusts attemp-
ted ct us aud the State Executive Com
mittee.
The writer claims that we carried
10000 Radical votes in the last election,
which is great mistake. This would
have made difference of $4,000 votes
in favor of the Democratic party, which
every person knows is far greater gain
taan We made. 1t is generally estimated
that in the last election we carried about
ten thousand Radicals, which made
difference of 10000 votes, and gave us
the State. 1t is now contended that
these votes which went for us before, are
excluded from our Clubs. They can
min if thew wish, and If they do not