The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1879-02-27
EplTHETs versus FACTS.

0Uu COuFfeF AttdCh upOu tuc xNuQ6IbOn
farmers generally and the editor of the
INTELLIGENCER in particular, which
charged Bu4lerism and Kearueyism in
broad and indiscriminating terms, has
aroused the ire of our contemporary, and,
instead of meeting the issues presented
in that article, exhibits an unusual
amount of spleen, substituting epithets
for argument or facts and dodging the
real points of the whole discussion. 1t
is, however, not strange that such
course is pursued, for it ia generally the
resort at the fag end of controversy of
the party who feels worsted in the con-
troversy. T Meacs and Courier begins
its last article by saying:
How far the Anderson INTELIH-
GENCER represents the farmers of An
derson County, it Is not for us to say.
TIE principal occupation of its editor il
office-seeking and office-holding, and of
course the INTELLiGENCER will say and
do whatever it thinks will be pG yular.
If the Ne,rs and Courier desires to
know how far tho INTELLIGENcER rep
resents the farmers of Anderson County,
we can inform it that this paper is not
the representative Of any particular clasa
persons, but seeks to advance the well
fare and interest of the whole citizens of
the County without regard TO their call
ing. Tho personal remaTA Of our con-
temporary that ":hc principal occupation
OF the editor Of the INTELLIGENCER is
ofiice-seeking and office-holding" is con-
temptible. 1t is no crime in South Car
olina to either seek or hold Office, and, if
it were, it would be difficult to convict
the editor oe this paper of any great
amount of either form of 1t. The editor
has never held any other office than
member of the Legislature, and rs to
whether he has ever been an ofice-aeeker
in the offensive sense Of the term in
which the Neacs and Courier uses, it does
not become us to say, but the people of
this County can judge for themselves.
Itwould, however, be very safe for us to
assert that if this is his principal occupe-
tion no has an abundance of idle time.
Nor has the INrELLIaENcER or its editor
sought to travel in popular paths. The
paper has never hesitated to take posi-
tion upon public questions without re-
gard to any temporary popularity. In
the beginning of the straight-out move
1nent ge we're slmeat slcne, h=. csci!;:;5,
that 1t was right we finally found our
position transferred from the minority to
the majority side by additions to the
party whose views we advocated along
with others in tho State. The editor Of
the INTELLIGENCEE advocated the aboli-
ton of the Bond Court in the Legislature
at time when it was boasted that we
would not get fifty votes in favor of it in
the House, and the journals Of the House
of Representatives will show that he
voted frequently in the minority in favor
of measures which are unpopular or op-
posed to those which are popular. The
NeWs and Courier entirely misconstrues
the aims and purposes Of this paper if it
thinks it is swayed by any cringing be-
fofc popular clamor. We. expect the IN
TELLIdENoEI to last and its influence to
be retained, therefore neither minorities
nor majorities decide its policy.
The Ne,cs and Courier also says: "Our
objection lay to the lo.rgcage of the reso-
lntions in which the determination of
the farmei3 was expressed. We were
mistaken, we are Informed, in supposing
that the editoT of the INTELLIaENoER
was ono Of the committee who reported
the resolutions bats by whomsoever
framed or Esported they bear on their
face the marks by which the work of tho
embryonic or full-grown professional
politician is known" The language is
uutt ours directly nor indirectly, and it
presents simply 81 matter of taste ahnnt
which the News and Courier and the
farmers disagree. In the. resolutions,
however, the farmers only expressed
their sentiments. If the Neps and Cou-
rier does not like them It may rect as
snred that those who adopted them will
not care one particle. Our contemporary
claims TO have been mistaken about our
being on the committee, but we allege
that its course amounted to wilful and
deliberate Misrepresentation for we un-
derstand that it was informed by q gen.
tleman from Anderson that we wero not
osof the controlleTs Of the fertilizer
meeting. and the INTELLIaENrRn. With
full list of the committee, reached it
before Che charge that we were upon the
committee was distinctly made by that
paper. In 1t the remarks we made upon
Invitation in the meeting were reported
end defined enr sscsi..iiea. E.ie. The course,
therefore, Of the paper in misrepresent-
ing facts in order TO carry its point is in
excusable, and we have used very mild
terms in ;characterizing it.
The Ncips and Gbnrier remove IT'S at
tack upon the farmers meeting, and
again lqgs the INrsLLIeENoER into it as
followa.
- .nl.e eAaeAlrs Hans ha,1nnnna IA a ss,slAl;,
ioroag what, in truth, is d private right.
stignatiEe ag sssaonopelistsr persons who
( are no moro "mopopoiiS than the Edi.
: Tor of tho eIlTEIIIGENcRR is, having no
special or exclusive privileges, and de.
scribe as a HcQnspiracy' the action OF, a
s body Of manufacturers mho, right }, I,
wrong, are certainly fSee to ask whas
siiey choose for what they have 10 sell.
This Il Butlefism and Keatneyisrn In 4
rlast offensive form. The threat to ssroot
a..s y A.siat tsa1s'' un.he- OF ecs s::..;;as,
because they have, measured by cotton.
advanced the price Of their manufactures
IS as 3 rave an offence against law and
order fs the worst threads Of the Sand;