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

>
sstt. .-y-ezse'-eE
The article of the ISTELLIGENCER
week before last, in reply to the Neacs
and Curriers' attack upon the Anderson
farmers generally and the editor of the
IsTELlIGENcER in particular, which
charged Bntlerism and Kearneyism 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 is generally the
+ resort at the fag end of controversy of
i the party who feels worsted in the con-
troversy. The Me,es and Courier begins
its last article by saving:
How far the Anderson INTELII-
GEECER represents the farmers of An
] derson County, it is not for. us to say.
The principal occupation of its editor is
ofice-sssking aud ofice-holding, and of
course the INTELLIGENCER will say and
do whatever it thinks will be popular.
# the Nears and Courier desires to
know how far the INTELL1GErcER rep
resents the farmers Of Anderson County,
We can inform it that this paper is not
the representative Of any particular class
Of persons, but seeks TO advance the well
fare and inusrest of the whole citizens Of
the County without regard to their call
ing. The personal remark of our con-
temporary that ethe principal occupation
OF the editor of the SINTELLIGENCER is
ofice-seskiny and offce-holding' is con-
temptible. It isno crime in South Car
0lina to either seek or hold Office, and, if
it we're, it would be difficult to convict
the editor of this paper of any great
amount of either form of il. The editor
has never held any other Office than
member of the Legislature, and as to
whether he has ever been an ofice-seeker
in the offensive sense of the term in
which the Nsns 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 occupa-
ton he has an abundance Of idle time.
Norhas the INrELlIGENeEa orits editor
sought to travel in popular pathB. The
paper has reyer hesitated to tal;e posi-
tion upon public questions without re-
gard to any temp porary popularity. In
The beginning Of the straight-out move
lnent We were almost alone, but feeling
that it 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 the State. The editor of
tha MTELIIGENcER advocated the aboli-
ton Of the Bond Court in the Legislature
atal time when it was boosted that we
would nos get fifty votes in favor Of it in
the House, and the journals Of the House
Of Representatives will show that he
yo.ed frequently in the minority in favor
ti measures which are unpopular or op-
posed to those which are popular. The;
Ncics and C6arier entirely misconstrues
Ehe aims and purposes of this paper if it
thinks it is swayed by any cringing be-
fore popular clamor. We expect the IN
..rELlIsENcER to last and its influence to
be retained, therefore neither minorities
{ nor inlorities decide its policy.
Tie Nears and Courier also says: "Our
objection lay to the Language of the reso-
Eirtions in which the determination of
TIE farmers was expressed. We were
mistaken, we are informed, in supposing
that3ske editor of tho INTEILIGENoER
vas slns.of the committee who reported
the resplutfens hgs5 by whomsoever
framed or; reported, they bear on their
facsl the marks by which the work Of the
embryonic or full-grown professional
politician is known" The language is
not OURS directly nor indirectly, and it
presents simply q matter of taste about
which the Neus and Courier and the
farmers disagree. In the. resolutions,
however, the farmers only expressed
thsirsenEiments. IF the Necs ard C5u-
riisz does not like them il may rest as
sured that those who adopted them will
( nea care one particle. Our contemporary
claims to have been mistaken about our
being on the committee, but we allege
thatits course amounted to wilful and
deliberate misrepresentation, for We un-
derstand that it was informed by gen.
tleman;from Anderson that we were not
one Of the controllers of the fertilizer
meeting, and the INrELLIGENoER, with
afnil list of the committee, reached it
before she charge that we were upon the
COMMITTEES was distinctly made by that
paper. In it the remarks we made upon
invitation in the meeting were reported
snd defined our position. The course,
therefore. Of the paper in misrepresent-
ing facts in order toicarry its point is In
excusable, and We have used very mild
=.
terms in characterizing it.
The .Nsus and Courier renews its at
tack npon the farmers meeting, and
again lugs the INTELLIeENCER into it as
follows:
4 !Ehe resolutions denounce as "pubHc
soroaqn what, in truth, is private right,
stigmatize as 1monopolists" persons who
!. ...ax..., Mr,nnnnraolioknNt than tha FL;