The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1879-01-02
A CHARGE OF INCONSISTENCY.

inst, an anonymous communication aP-
pears from Anderson under date of De-
cember 10Th, which we publish below
for the purpose of commenting upon it
and showing the undermined and con-
spirit which it manifests to-
wards the editor of the INTELLIGENcER.
1t is as follows:
The late active opposition in the Leg
islature of Mr.. E. B. Murray to the
Bond Court might operate a complete
surprise on his constituency. For be 1t
remembered that only as far back as
August last his advocacy of this Court
was most pointed and pronounced. BY
referring to the editorial in reply to an
article written by Mr.. S. Hyde, Jr., of
Charleston, contained in the issue of the
INTELL1GENcER of August the 1st, it
will be seen that Mr.. Murray is most
Jealous advocate for the existence and
continuance of the Bond Court. Let the
following extracts, in the very words OF
the editorial, show if this be true, viz
ave have claimed, and see no reason to
change our opinion that the whole bond
question ought to be settled as economi-
cally, as justly, as speedily and as per-
manently as possible, and any citizen OF
the State who interiors for his selfish
purposes to prevent such result is not
patriotic. Now the investigation by the
Bond Court would, we believe, secure a
speedy, just, economical and permanent
settlement of the debt question, and un-
til we can be convinced that this is
wrong we will hold the opinion that
those who seek partial, Temporary and
expensive settlement, like suits on cou.
pons, are not as patriotic as they should
be, and if they do not mind they will
discover that they have made mistake
in breaking down the Bond Court, which
is the best settlement they will ever get
for if they refuse this fair means of set.
Element, and the matter is thrown back
into the Legislature, they may depend
upon it that nothing more will be paid
than what is free from all taint of fraud" ."
Again: "Our readers can jndge for them
selves as to which is the most patriotic
mode of settlement, the one proposed by
our correspondent, or the one proposed
by the Legislature and approved by the
Governor, and if the bondholders destroy
tie Court they will rue their folly when
more rigid terms are imposed upon
thenl."
How do this language and these ex-
pressions harmonic with his utterances
in the halls of legislation Was Mr..
Murray convicted by the arguments of
Mr.. Hyde? If so, why did he not con-
fess it? Or has there transpired any
thing unusual or extraordinary since in
judicial investigations, or any recent start
ling developments made in the bond
question, to produce this sudden transit
ton and lofty somersault? (? If so they
have escaped our observation. His ardor
and zeal are utterly at variance with the
consistency, but reflect with perfect faith
fulness his short political career and an
tecedents, for it is characteristic with him,
the more radical his change the more vi
olent his advocacy for the last position
assumed.
This letter evinces nothing but de-
sire to injure the editor of this paper as
an individual, without attempting to vim
dicate any matter of principle, for the
unknown p6tcr does not inform the pub
lie what he thinks about the debt of the
State or any mode of settlement. He is
after gratifying personal feeling of hate
or envy which he entertains for us, and
therefore, without the independence to
assail US over his own name, he writes
not to his home paper to condemn the
action of a representative, where his con-
stituents would read the condemnation,
but to a paper published in another cx-
treme Of the State, and which circulates
to considerable extent over the whole
State along the lines of railroads. The
reason for this is plain. The writer
knows that ninety-nine hundredths OF
the people of this County approve the
action of the entire Anderson delegation
(of which we are only one) upon the
public debt question, and hence his arti-
Gle above quoted could not injure US
here, therefore he seeks to impugn our
action before the people of the State
with the hope that he may contribute
something to the effort which certain
newspapers are making to write all of us
down who favor an elimination of the
fraud from the settlement of the States
debt.
The only specification he has made
against US is that of inconsistency in ad-
vocating the abolition of what is famili-
arly termed the Bond Court because on
the first day of August last we published
an editorial which he claims committed
us to the Bond Court. This charge was
made on the floor Of the House by Mr..
John J. Hemphill, who had the articles
sent to him from Charleston by persons
friendly to the holders of bonds claimed
in the Bond Commissions report to be
fraudulent, and the charge was answered
by US at that time, though the Meacs and
Courier published a brief outline of Mr..
Hemphilps charge without giving to the
public the facts set forth in our answer.
Our wise-acre critic, therefore, is not an
originator but simply splenetic copyist.
There is some apparent Inconsistency
in our position, ifyou judge from portions
of the editorials, butif you take the whole
of them together it will be seen that
they were written to condemn the ac-
ton of the bondholders who were trying
their suits before Judge whose views
they thought accorded with their own
wishes. In the articles referred to, we
did contend that the bondholders should
submit their cases to the Court which