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

had the tcmerity TO differ from our con.
temporary on several public questions.
There is no reason for it to conceal it's
malice, except that it has repeatedly
asserted that it entertaines none, and we
are satisfied that our contemporary be-
lieves that 1t is unprejudiced and candid,
but no reader of the paper we imagine
will agree with him. In all of his differ.
ences with the INTELLIGENcER, he has
invariably begun and continued the con.
troyersy with irrelevant and uncalled-
for personal thrusts at the Editor Of the
lNTELLIGENCER, which have served no
purpose in the controversy, ca ept to
manifest personal antipathy 10 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
INTELLIGENcER 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 a string of boorish comments
which seek to defend an attack which
was never made. What we conveyed in
tho 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 oil 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 we're, therefore, not only
local politicians, but were representing in
the most part, local feelings. The o.
serrer is local paper, and In this fight
represents o local feeling, and we can
make all reasonable allowances for its
desperation when 1t writes on these sub
jects. we do not claim to be exempt
from criticism, nor do we care to prevent
it. We have enough faith in the correct
ness of our positions, to BIZ willing to
submit them to the test Of any fair dis
cussion, and when debate transgresset
that, as the Observer has done, by mekine
the confederation of principles subservi
ent to ersonal imputations, it only harms
him whose side is 80 weak as to render 9
resort to such methods necessary. We
/ submit that when our article was written
1t was not known which members would
oppose tho University. The Legislature
had not met, and our remarks were made
I upon question of public interest with
out reference 10 individuals. The OJser
rer maze lts attack not upon the question
involved, but upon the Editor of the
INTEILIGENCER. The public can judge
| as to which savors moro of malice. In
| conclusion, we would congratulate the
Observer upon the evident improvement,
l in the tone Of it's last article. It inspires
the hope that at no distant day we may
be able 10 differ from our contemporary
and indulge 10 discussion Of those diff
ferences, without being subjected to the
discussion of ptrsonal matters, wholly un'
connected With the subject matter of the
1 cnuttoyarpv