The Democrat. (Scotland Neck, Halifax Co., N.C.) 1884-1896, 1885-09-03

marks. We distinctly said that
we are "s,adividuaHy in favor Of turn
ings the University sc. In your
ouotation you left individually"
out, thus making it appear that we
world advocate that. Then it seems
that the Advance is bent upon mis-
representing us. 1t may be that
we are unable to express our
thoughts, it may be that we are a
fool and express to wise people
what we do not mean, but it is
strange to us that the keen eyed
Advance is the only one in our
knowledge that ever yet ON any
subject received else than the i'm
preston we intended to convey.
And since we find that we are I'M
derstood by all our readers save the
Aduancewe are unwillingly led to the
conclusion that our contemporary
lacks the power of correct under
standing. He speaks Of our excited
imagination, when we find such mis-
representations as we sometimes
do, we become excited we admit:
but it is caused by wonder and sur
prise, but what can cause a person
quietly perusing an earnest edito
rial to become so excited as to in.
dulge in misrepresentation we
know not.
Whether there is a State institu
ton such as we described as run
ming in competition with our Col
leges and high schools and giving
tuition out on the principles of lot
terry &C., we care not, but wish
there was not. The people may de-
eide that, the advance denies ii
however. Here is wherein Ou1
contemporary misrepresents us:
he talks of the "argument against
the public school SYSTEM" We
gave none. There was none. We
tried to give none. We never will.
The patriotic Advance never did and
never will surpasS the DEMOCRAT
in it's zeal for our public schools,
but we deny that Chapel Hill should
be the head of these schools. We
believe in the free schools, our read
ers know this, they could expect us
to take no other position. But il
our schools gave tuition to only one
boy in each township as now our
University gives tuition to only one
boy from each county, we would OPP
pose. it. If every boy and every
| girl could be admitted to the Uni
| versity we might not oppose the
free tuition, for then it would con
tain some fairness. Any one who
read the article in the Advance and
who did not read the DEMOCRAT
and hundreds did it, if he trusts the
former now thinks we oppose ou1
public school system. Why were
we shown in such a ight?. Will
anything we have ever said war
rant it, Surely not. Ifanything is
seen through green spectacles it ap
pears green, through dirty glass il
appears dirty, oh! how did we ap
pear when we were seen by Others
through the spectacles Of the Adj
vance? Don't tell us.
| We hope the Advance read our ar
ticle in last issue upon the Univer
sity for in it were some thoughts
about free tuition, &c. Our con
temporary concludes by saying "bu
the subject of the University seems
| to have unsettled the views of tht
DEMOCRAT upon even that prima
ry principle"-meaning the righ1
Of the State to maintain a public
school system. We hope not. W,
believe the State has that right
And if it ever becomes necessary
we will defend that right. Did any
body else think we were "off' OF
that! What's the matter then
Only misinterpretation. The II
all. We wish we could have made
only the corrections necessary fol
hem O. understood