Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1882-09-21
ssTHE NEW COUNTY NATTER"

In Justice to the Rock Hill Herald and in
order, 50 far as we are concerned, to present
to our readers what may be said by the county
press on both sides of the question, we print
on the fourth page Of this issue, under the
above heading, the Herald's rejoinder to our
article of the 7th instant. We deem an ex-
tended reply to the article of the Herald un-
necessary, in view of the fact that the primary
canvass is rapidly drawing to close, and weare
content with the asseveratiOn that our pubi-
cation of the communication which so dis
turbed the Herald was not prompted by the
motives ascribed to us, nor do we suppose the
writer of the communication entertained the
remotest idea OF desire of creating the slight
est dssension in the Democratic ranks. We
maintain that the Amendment question is a
proper one for discussion in the primary can
vass. and that it's discussion does not necessa-
rily imperil the Democratic party. Democrats
may and do differ on this as other questions of
State polity, and as between the primary and
general election the former is the proper forum
in which the wishes Of the Democracy may
be decided If candidates are not to declare
their views on public questions, either inside
or outside the party lines, why have the pri-
mary canvass The canvass would be farcical
and the primary election supremely so if can
didates were not to enunciate their views on
important public questions, or if the voters
cast their ballots in ignorance of the views en-
tertained, or which would be advanced by the
respective candidates. Consistent Democrats
may honestly differ on internal questions, as
this controversy shows that they do, and yet
act harmoniously in face of the common
enemy. For all responsibility, if any, of fore
ing this issue on the people the Legislature
is accountable. 1t is question to be decided
by the people of the counties through their
respective representatives, and it is attracting
the attention of Democratic voters in the
various counties.
Generally and emphatically we say we have
no desire to deprive Eastern York of represen-
tation.
On one other point we will answer the Her.
all with equal candor. The Herald asks: 'If
the new county advocates had been known to
be in the majority in this county, would
Many Voters have propounded his query, or
would Mr.. Grist have admitted it to his COL
umns with his endorsement p' To this hy-
pothetical question we reply irst that under
the circumstances supposed, had 'Many Vo-
ters'' propounded the query, we should have
printed it ; and secondly, in admitting it to
our columns it would not have received our
editorial endorsement.
The Herald further says:
The ENQUIRER claims that the "Practical
and Pertinent Question: was signed by all to
whom it was offered. We deny it. We have
conversed with at least one gentleman from
its own town who informed us that he not
only refused to sign it, but denounced it as a
movement that would deprive Eastern York
of representation in the General Assembly.
He took about the same view of it that we
did, and we contend that is the only rational
conclusion that can be drawn from it.
We yet adhere to the statement as being
correct at the time it was written, and since
the above lines appeared in the Herald, after
diligent inquiry, we have been unable to as
certain the sapient gentleman whose vast
profundty found utterance in such eminent
ly conservative words.