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

and showing the underhandcd and con-
temptible spirit which it manifeats to-
yards the editor Of the INTELLIGENcER.
1t is rs follows:
The late active opposition in the Leg
is.ature of Mr. l.. Il. Murray to the
Bond Court might operate complete
surprise on his constituency. For be it
remembered that only as far back rs
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
ISTELLIGENCER Of August the lst, it
will be seen that Air. Murray is a 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 he true, viz:
1--WE have claimed, and see no reason to
change our opinion that the whole bond
question ought to be settled as ccon0mi-
cally, rs justly, ~ speedily and ~ per-
mancntly as possible. and any citizen of
the State who interiors for his selfish
purposes to prevent such Il result is not
patriotic. Now the investigation by the
Bond Court would, we believe, secure Il
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 rs patriotic rs 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: "Onr readers can jndgc 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 bondholdcrs destroy
the Court they will rue their folly when
more rigid terms are imposed upon
thcm."
How do this language and these cy-
pressions harmonizo with his uttcranccs
in the halls Of legislation Was Mr..
Murray convicted by tho arguments Of
Mr.. Hyde? II so, why did lac not con
Tess it? Or has there transpircd any
thing unusual or extraordinary since in
judicial Investigations, or any recent start
ling developments made in the bond
question, to produce this sudden transi-
tiOn and lofty somcrsault If so they
have escaped our observation. His ar ,r
and zeal are utterly Mt variance with |.
consistency, but reflect with perfect faith
fulncss his short political career and nn-
tecedeDts, for il is characteristic with him,
the more radical his change the more vi
olent his advocacy for the last position
assumed.
This letter cyinccs nothing but de-
sire to iniure the editor of this paper ns
nm individual, without attempting to vim
dicatc any matter of principle, for the
unknown Vj,cr does not inform the pub
lie whit 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 representative, where his con-
would read the condemnation,
but to y paper published in another cx-
treme Of the State, and which circuates
to considerable extent over the whole
State along the lines Of railroads. The
reason for this is plain. The writer
knows that nincty-nine hundrcdths 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 nrti-
Gle above quoted could not injure ns
here, therefore he seeks to impugn our
action before the people of the State
with the hope that lie may contribute
something to the effort which certain
newspapers are making to write MI 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 terme,! tho 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 no ders Of bonds claimed
in the Bond Con mi" .on's report to be
fraudulent, and the charge was answered
by us at that time, though the Netrs and
Courier published brief outline of Mr..
Hemphill's charge without giving to the
public the facts set forth in our answer.
Our wise-acre critic, therefore, is not an
originator but simply spienetic copyist.
There is some apparent inconsistency
in our position, ifyou judge from portions
of the editorials, but if you take the whole
of them together it will be seen that
they were written ~ condemn the &C.
ton Of the bondholGs7S who we're trying
their suits before Judge whose views
they thought accorded with their own
wishes. In the articles referred to, we
did contend that the bondholdcrs should
submit their casea to the Court which
their friends in the Legislature had Sc
cured the creation of, but they did not
do SO. Their cases were tried boforc
Judge Mackey, and when he decided
againet them they appealed to the Su-
preme Court, and their cases are now
pending before that Court, independent