The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1866-1891, 1879-05-15
Reply to "Observer."

am, Northern and southern IHai C1ose9 "' '"
Reply to "observer."
A communication appeared in the
Krrslnm Gazette of last week over
the signature of "Observer, which
reflected upon the JOURNAL, and we
feel that an answer is necessary.
It is very evident that Observer
is preiudiced-judging from the spii,,
rit of pettyaspite that crops out all
through the communication, and the
whole article is conglomeratlon OF
contradictions and errors.
In the first place: He says, In re-
ferring to the articles in the JOURNAL,
(which. to the unsuspecting, may
appear a plausible argument to adj
vance the ground taken by a limited
few of non-taxpayers who denounce
the action of Council, etc. We have
not advocated the cause of arg par
ticular person, and defy him to show
an instance where we have. We
contended for the rights Of our citi-
zens over non-residents, and we do
not believe there is an Intelligent
taxpayer in town but who, if he gave
his honest opinion, would say.that
we we're right, and that Council did
wrong in going outside OF town Tor
officers -,
he then goes on to say, "Councl
are fully capable of taking care OF
themselves when they conceive that
their good name is attacked by re
sponsible parties" If they are able
sto take care of themselves, why does
he take up the cudgel and handle it SO
wildly in their behalf? The JOURNAL
is responsible for everything it does
or saws. 1t is no fawning, cringing,
bootlicking sheet that will do
ANYTHING or serve any party for
nav. We will stand up for right
and justice, no matter what comes, and
we believe that every unbiased man
will stand by us. The JOURNAL never
assails the good name of any one,
but when the rights of citizens are SO
grossly ignored by their officers it
is the duty of the press to show
their acts up to the people so that IN
future the will know what to do
when the time comes for a change
of officers.
In reference to certain resolG-
ton. he says it was miserably and
palpably misprinted " in the JOURNAL
and in the very next sentence says
she does not mean to charge that
the Misrepresentation OF the resolu-
ton was Intentional" What con-
tradiction! The resolution was given
us as a correct copy from the record.
We have not seen the book, and we
do not know yet that we are III
error. However, his great elephant
is that we used the word land IN
place of "or," which any unbiased
person can see, by reading the reso-
luton, would not materially change
the sense and intent Of it either way
enough for an intelligent jury to
make a question of the point were
it produced in trial.
We do not want to be too lengthy,
therefore will pass over many OF the
minor errors and come to the tax
question. He says that ''out of eight
applicants for the position of Chief
OF Police, only three have paid any
taxes to the town. One paid fifty
cents, another sixty cents, and the
one elected to the position "a non
resident) paid drty dotlors. He is IN
error as to the $50 dollar man. He
does not psy to the town that amount
as tax. He pays sixty dollars to
the town for rent of stalls in the mar
yet, just the sameas merchant pays
rent for store, and it cannot be
called a tax-other than rent.
Now comes piece of his spite ::
He assails the character and motives
of some of the applicants for the po-
sition of Chief of police, saying that
"they are too lazy to work at their
calling, hence seek a position which
they hope to hold and draw pay on,
without giving value received" Why
does he thus abuse these men? They
had nothing to do with the question,
and ought not to be made target
for his passion.
It is not necessary for us to say
anv more about Mr.. observers
communication at present, only to
give him little advice: When you
See fit to write again to defend the
action of a party, be sure that you
are on the right track, and don't let
your passion run away with your
reason.
We are as kindly disposed toward
the gentlemen occupying the posi-,
ti,ns in dispute as any member OF
Council. They are good and eff,
cent men. tits the principle Of the
thing and not the men, that We are
intending for-the rights OF resi-
d ,nfs vs.. non-residents.
An Ancient Punch Bowl.
Mrs. J. S. Meroney has porcelain