The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1885-12-09
TO THE PUBLIC.

eorrobarated by Mr.. Charles Ollie.
Some of the following are instances:
sAs to the charge OF partiality IN the
conduct Of the examination, MIR. Net
aes has only the testimony OF the de-
seated candidate. When Mr.. Nethes's
FIRST attack On the board was PUBLISH
ed, we immediately sent it to Mr.
Wolfe, the successful candidate, asking
e the charges were true From Dir.
WoNes reply, dated Oct. 25th, We
quote as follows: z can certify that the
charge Of your peremptosily closing
the examination is untrue. and, also,
charges both of undue partiaity and
your suggesting the rewriting OF my
papers y
Again Mr.. Chandler says sWe GER
sainly know that no part of Mr.. Wolfe's
paper was rewritten at our suggestion,
except as indicated in our former ar
ticle, which shows the suggestion made
30 both applicants" !"
Mr.. Chandler asserts that arithme-
Sic was disposed of the first day and
ssshat both applicants so understood it,
or should have so understood it. from
what was told them, and that neither
made q figure upon his paper on that
branch after Friday evening"
Mr. Chandler quotes from Mr.. Net
Ties as follows: aBoth applicants had
MOI. fa;led To do one example piyen,"
and then replies thus: eve do not
6Hd that either did it, and we offer
proof that both tried it. In the letter
above quoted from, Mr.. Wolfe says
The other applicant (Mr. Wilson)
told me on the morning Of the nine
teenth ult., that he could not get the
example Dir. Chandler then goes
on to say aMr. Wilson worked at
arithmetic and grammar from before
noon until nearly night-a time of
about six hours-and he did not make
an elaborate paper upon either. Fin
all that time he had been working at
what he submitted upon those branch
es to the board, he is too utterly slow
fora military man. The enemy would
shoot him all to pieces before he
could arrange himself" In speaking
OF the example in cube root, Mr.
Chandler says: sThe simple truth is,
that Mr.. Wilson did not do the ex-
ample because he could not. Now
ne asserted that had either done the
example the second day he would not
have been accredited with it; and
again we assert that he would not.
Mr. Chandler says: ..Mr. Chandler
certainly never replied thasit was Fill
more to any question put by Mr..
Wolfe. OF that we are perfectly as
sured; and our memory is very clear
upon the point"
Now, as TO Mr. Wolfe and his alleged
statements ] have only this to say,
ior the present at least: That my short
acquainsance and association with Mr..
Wolfe during the examination were
OF the most sgreesbie and pleasant
nature, and I. am not prepared to ac-
cusa him OF scil aQy making misstate-
msnts, unless I had better proof of h:s
hnssng made salea statements. But this
! have 10 say IN regard to the matter:
Mr. Wolfe asked MI. Chandler, aWho
succeeded President = Tyler 2, and Mr..
Chandler replied, ssFillmore" where
upon, 7 said TO Mr., Chandler, aYou
sre wrong, but that is a question for
as TO answer" to which Mr. Chandler
said, n substance, ss0h yes, that is so,
Charlie, Ican't answer that, that is one
OF the questions" Of this 7 am 1sper-
5ectly assnsed, and .nay memory is
ss.y clear upon the point"
What DE-. Chandler means by say
hg: sBut. we have never felt it incum-
beat upon Us to notice sn insult Offer
Cd By . sbsby," I can hardly conceive.
H surely ought not to have been an
ainsuls to him to be reminded Of the
Smpropeiety Of ans,oering question
dor one OF the persons standing the
examination. I certainly did not IN
aead to insult" him; but had I
done SO, I think the ababy" would
have been perfectly a0s0lng to have held
hiNseF reponsable,--at any rate, be is
Bow nineteen gears old, end would have
Lr. Chandler to ,tnde7Send that be,
Che ababy, is able, ready, and aoilliag
70 ans,cer for anaateper he may say or do.
I assert that Mr.. Chandler did sag
9ea to III. Wolfe individually the re-
tritina Of one OF his papers. which, I
think, was his paper on arithmetic, for
It was Friday evening, and we COM
menced on arithmetic FIRST. Mr.. Chan
dler asserts that arithmetic had been
disposed of the first day, and 'that
both applicants so understood il, orI
should have so understood it, from
what was told them, and that neither
made figure upon his paper on that
branch after Friday evening" Why
the applicants should have aunder-
stood that arithmetic had been aais-
posed Of" am at a loss to know, and
cannot understand why Mr. Chandler
should have made such an assertion.
The a,,,,1;can nfs commenced on a-ith- |