The news and herald. (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1877-1900, 1880-07-31

= =.
IN favor Of any one, and yotes, or adj
vantages of position were secuied, by
this unparalleled procedure, otherthan
/ would have followed by a strict adher-
ence to the usual rules of elections,
then was 1t gambling drawn like q
prize IN lottcry,p '..Won like a'quarter
Object at q shooting-match," and the
result of "luck'' in the fullest accepta.
ton Of the terms, Nor will any sane
man deny that great advantages OF
position resulted to Colonel Evins b$
remaining in the hat, and that serious
disadvantages accrued to me by being
forced int0 antagonism with General
Kennedy, whose supporters were not
only my natural allies, hut u majority
OF whom were known to DO friendly
to me whenever tho contest narrowed
TO Colonel Evins and myself. Like
Colonel Farrow,I was a member OF
both tho State and Congressional Con
yentions III 1876, and state upon nv
own authority that no nomination was
made at our first meeting because of
the alleged absence Of an entire dele
CATION from the western side of Broad
River, who were claimed to be sup
p 'rers of Gen. Kennedy, but wlio
proved upon arrival to be adllercnts of
| Col. Evins; and upon the announce
inetit ot their absence the Convention
adjourned over Oh motion of Gen,
BrattOn--direct or by seoonding---wll llo
ammo unccd that my friends did not
propose to claim any advantages
Now, here is indisputably "luck"--
good for Col. Evins, G0d for me, as tho
reasonable presumption Is that had this
Convention pursued the usual routine
OF such bodies, and gone on with its
business, Iwould have been nominated
upon the first ballot. But no blame at
taches to Col. Evins or his friends here
no more than in the cases first cited /;
still, 1t goes in to make up the general
count "luck," to which I allege he
owes his position.
Again, have seen amember Of this
Convention within the last few DAYS
who says that received sixteen votes
OH more than one ballot, which, but for
q resolution of Col. Farrow. allowing
delegates. who were present to
cast the vote Of their coun-
4ics, G c., allowing one man to
throw tivo votes, while by a strange
coincidence moro delegates were al
sent from Col. Eyins' side than from
mine,) was q majority Of delegates
present and entitled me to the nomina-
ton. If this is true, then is there here
another piece of good "luclk" for Col.
Evins and another laurel for the brow
OF Col. Farrow, who already enjoys
the reputation of being the finest wire
puller in the up-country. Being be-
fore the Convention for its support,
deemed 1t decent to retire, and did 80
prior to the first ballot, and I am
therefore dependent upon the state
ments of others for facts announced
and opinions promulgated. Ncverthe-
| less can now procure the names OF
several most reliable gentlemen who
still assert that upon a fair square vote
was the choice Of this body, and that
without tue hat process l would have
been its nominee for Congress in 1876,
But what Of all this? 1t docs not
disqualify Col. Evins, and should not
enhance my chances, for it involves
neither matters of personal integrity
nor questions Of qualification, nor the
discussion of issues material at this
late day. Why, then, was it alluded to
i'll my lancaster Letter? For two
reasons. Decisions like this are ant to
breed dissatisfaction and do damage in
the ranks of Democracy because they
SAVIOUR of unfairness, and make even
successful candidates wanting in ap.
probation Of honors conferred, anC
reckless of responsibilities dcvolveC
upon them, as is stated in my Lancas
ter letter. Again, in the course of this
canvass have met friends Of Col
! Evins who urge his claims for rc-eleo-
tlOn because he was selected to lead q
! forlorn hope in 1876, and they say that
much is still due him on this score
&c. Now, where is the unfairncss o1
the proceeding when attempt 70 Ecu.
traliZe the effects of this idea which
l find telling for him and against me,
by showing, what really believe, that
there was no selection at all, and that
he owes his nomination to accident
more than to design? Had he accept
cd my challenge to canvass Lancaster,
he would have heard much of this,
and Of all other matters which were
calculated to rctard his speed and
accelerate mine. One question sug-
gcstS itsel! just here, and it is this: If
the nomination Of Colonel Evins in
1876 was the result Of luck, and he had
no opposition in 1878, and as it seems
that the matter cannot no,O be can
vassed before the people, when. and
where, and how has il ever been dc
tcrmincd that he is the choice Of the
people of the Fourth District.
AS has been stated. was not pres.
ent at the balloting, and must write
from tho statements of others, who,
whilst they may be mistaken, are no
more liable to be so than Colonel
Farrow, for all, think, are depend
ent upon memory, and it will there
fore involve no issues as to testimony
when say that their accounts of the
different ballotings vary materially
from his statements us given in the
Herald. BE this as it may, if there was
u "draVing" at all, although agreed
upon and conducted with perfect fair
ness, still was there "gambling" for
something which was "drawn like a
prize in lottery" or "won like a
quarter of beef at shooting-match," )"
just as you please-all of which result
in "lucb," pure and unadultcrated.
And these arc all the allegations in my
Lancaster letter.