The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1885-01-01

had the temerity to differ from our con.
temporary on several public questions.
There is no reason for it to conceal its
malice, except that it has repeatedly
asserted that it entertaines none, and we
are Satisfied that our contemporary be-
lieves that it is unprejudiced and candid,
but no reader of the paper we imagine
will agree with him. In all of his differ
ences with the INTELL1GENcER, he has
invariably begun and continued the con-
troyersy with irrelevant and uncalled-
for personal thrusts at the Editor of the
INTELL1GENcER, which have served no
purpose in the controversy, except to
manifest a personal antipathy to the
Editor of this paper The whole of our
offending in this instance, was in assert
ing that those who would oppose The
South Carolina University, were "local
politicians" For this, the Observer re.
minds the public that the Editor of the
INTELL1aENcER ran for Congress in the
late election. What has this to do with
the South Carolina University? 1t is
simply child.like thrust, meant to be
unpleasant to an opponent, but not con-
nected with the matter in hand. Then
follows string Of boorish comments
which seek to defend an attack which
was never made. What we conveyed in
the paragraph of which the Observer
complains, was that it was waste Of
time to discuss the University, and that
the opposition would be made BY local
politicians. We now stand ready to sus-
tain that assertion by the record. The
vote was three to one in favor of the
University, and the opposition to the in-
stitution came from local politicians.
We do not mean to say that these gen.
tlemen were not the equals in brains, in
integrity and in all that makes true man.
hood of any other men in the world, but
we do mean to say that they were all
County politicians, and most of them
came from Counties with opposing col
|leges. They were, therefore, not only
| local politicians, but we're representing in
! the most part, local feelings. The Oh
seruer is local paper, and in this fight
| represents local feeling, and we can
make all reasonable allowances for its
desperation when it writes on these sub.
jects. We do not claim to be exempt
from criticism, nor do we care to prevent
lit. We have enough faith in the correct
ness of our positions, to be willing to
submit them to the test of any fair dis
cussion, and when. debate transgresses
that, as the Observer has done, by making
the consideration of principles subservi-
ent to personal imputation9, it only harms
him whose side is so weak as to render a
resort to such methods necessary. We
| submit that when our article was written
| it was not known which members would
oppose the University. The Legislature
had not met, and our remarks we're made
upon question of public interest with.
out reference to individuals. The Obser-
ger made its attack not upon the question
involved, but upon the Editor of the
INrEIL1GENcER. The public can Judge
as to which savors more of malice. In
conclusion, we would congratulate the
Observer upon the evident improvement
| in the tone of its last article. Itinspires
| the hope that at no distant day We may
be able to differ from our contemporary,
| and indulge in discussion of those diff.
ferences, without being subjected to the
! discussion of personal matters, wholly un-
connected With the subject matter of the
controversy.