The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1885-02-12
Mr.. EDITOR: / being one of the one

Mr.. EDITOR: i being one or the one
thousand who signed the petition sent
from this County to our Representatives,
in regard to holding au election upon the
question of license or no license, and also
one of their constituents, beg little
space to add only few words to what has
already been said with reference to the
action of our Representatives, and the
disposition they saw proper to make of
it.
1t was certainly as reasonable arequest
as any people could have made of their
Representatives, or of any body of men.
Simply asking the privilege of holding
au election to settle or determine a local
question. Even if each Of our four
Representatives had doubted the expedi-
ency or propriety of the bill, it was
certainly their duty to have granted the
petition; and then when the election
had been called, and they having an
opportunity to vote, could with perfect
consistency have voted against it. The
question was not as to whether they
favored prohibition or not. 1t was
whether or not they would carry out the
wishes and petitions Of their constituents.
If an equal number of petitioners had
instructed them not to favor such bill,
then they would have had sufficient
grounds for their actions. But we have
heard of no such petition, and they are,
therefore, left without any reasonable
excuse for the course they have seen
proper to pursue; and l think their
actions justly deserves the severest criti-
cism at the hands of their constituents.
In referring to our Representatives, how
ever, as body or as whole, we are nec-
essarily compelled to be personal, in
order to exhonerate from censure those
whom we think have given satisfactory
account of their stewardship. am
inclined to think that the two who first
recognized the right of the people to
demand of them an account have given
satisfactory explanation; while that Of
the other two has not been satisfactory.
One of them has never clearly and
positively stated his position, nor offered
anything approximating a satisfactory
reason for his action. His unsuccessful
attempts to dodge the question, thorough
y confirms the idea the people entertain
ed of his views, viz: that he was not
in favor of the bill. Perhaps he
| very carefully calculated the cost
of getting the bill through and of hold
ing an election, and decided he would
improve the opportunity of teaching the
people OF Anderson County lessons of
economy. In his speech in the Court
House in November last, he stated his
reason for never having introduced a
bill--that it cost too much; and it ap.
pears that the strictest economy has
characterized his actions this session,
also. During his absence from home,
| and ever since his return, he has been
very economical in dealing out TO his
constituents the information they desired
of him. As for the other he simply
stated how he stood in the "matter," "
without assigning any reason for the
"faith that was in him." | suppose he
thought that for the people to simply
know his views on any subject was suffi-
cient. While we very cheerfully concede
to him the right to think as he
pleases, we do not concede to him the
right to act as lie chooses while he is a
servant of the people. Perhaps he has
decided that he ia citizen of Georgia,
anyway; he at least seemed to be- very
much interested in the prohibition move
ment in Elbert County, judging from his
conversation on the streets of Elbert last
salesday. When South Carolina needed
the services of every white man she
could get to help redeem her from Rad
icalism, he was citizen of
Georgia; but as soon as he considered
her safe, and saw an opportunity to
represent Anderson County in the Legis'
lature, be was a citizen of South Carroll.
na. When the time rolls round to choose
our Representatives again, and he
should happen to be left out, South
Carolina may have to relinquish
her claims, and consent for him to claim
again his citizenship in Georgia.
JUBILo.