The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1885-09-10
SIMPLY SIMPLER.
s. The Anderson Journal repliesas follows
ia ti,e article in the INTELL1aENcER last


sinclination to reproduce the INTELLI-
saENcERs bling, wrigglng, attenuated
editorial of this week, nor to reply togit
sat length. Altar attempting to twist our
first article into q tangle, and smearing it
s0ver with suggestions as to what it might
mean, the tINTELLIGENCER's imperti-
snence III allnding to the Journal at all
IN scornection with the matter of pro.
ahibifi0n now merges into impudence.
Wei8re not rufled in the least by the
sINTEiIIGENCER's expressions of its sus-
spicionA which are plainly at variance
with ifs claim as to original purpose, and
We aresby no means concerned in its con.
sclpsi0rs I'VE haze fully defined our
sposit 4a1d there issno use to repeat it.
I've are satisfied with having the appro-
5bation 0f Ernany of ou1 most prominent
:citizenR Ii every walk and calling, men
who do nut r,ish into every agitation for
the sake being conspicuous. s3
In &hes lNTgLLIGENCER'S affusioD this
|week fit first characteriEes our position
SIS ssssmply simple, and then wrestles
3;giit sn thEee-anafters Of q column of
sodif6a e1asperation il; then shows the
8nnidi HI the mock asuayity. in its first
arfiS y saying now it suspected us of
beH3s posed to prohibition; it asserts
81 BIO license people never aband-
& one3 cause in Anderson, and In
l1next sentence admits that they
3failed make Eight some years because
they hight it usele (which it pre-
slmabl considers adhering to and stand
ing; BY cause, for such is in keeping
with thd xtent of its support of prohi.
abition denies having antagonized
sceria;n &blic men on the question of
1 prohibit though it used its columns
f0r WeekS b draw expressions from our
RepSessnk ktiyes in the Legislature, call
ing on BIN repeatedly and by name,
Sand then proceeded to commend those
who agr&d with it and pronounce
Judgment kainst those who differed; as
an Offset Its weH-known yacillation it
schildishly @serts that the journal never
stakes "a poskion on-aay important ques-
saon; which simply goes for naught in the
face Of our record, during the past nine
Isearsi it acknowledges being 9 hobby.
ider, whicE Edisposes of that point and
gldg no defence on the charge
= beipg 1weather-co cock, in schoo boy
SIC pronounces it dalse, in the face OF
RI fsct that the general tenor of former
cles went. to show that the editor had
EiaDged positions on the question of pro.
Edition because he had changed his no.
bnast 20 what the people wanted, and
s. tie article quoted last week the In
FEHlIeENgER;says, We believe the peo..
,sieswarft il and they ought to have it.
"a The sum Of the whole matter IS that
fbe INTELIIaENcER evidently concluded
sprohibition was popular, and then
Tdck ont; TO work it for all the ,notoriety
& l rs worth. It is welcome to all it can
in such ignoble course, but if it
2fo gain any advantage over the
70 III Se promise to see it at Philippl.
s Aper sthat only represents the
3aspirations of it's editor, as Is
81 q sSf fY OF the INTBLLIGENCER In re.
$, can lay.n claim to impartial
iia} b, and The hurrah of q dema.
jI llowerIof public opinion vii! not
ba ssaken for the voice OF q
leader"
S article of the Journal, compared
:6rst attack on the INTELLIGEN-
simply simpler. The Journal has
iStle idea of fair controversy, and
iii present only its side of a question
M Sesders. Therefore, it terms an
IS .,ubich dissects its article, and
Tat it is at heart opposed to pro
hfa rambling, wriggling and atten-
sEtorial. Itpresented facts which
jDt comfortable for the journal to
5hbIic, and therefore it very pru-
chose to ask its readers to put up
g statement Of the character Of
. STELLIGENcER's position. When
s1saz says that it has fully defined
lttion, it shows that it either wishes
Represent the facts or does not
hsw-to take position. It's posi-
B isSthat it does not want the people to
how what its position is. 1t may have
Tho appreciation of many of our most
prominent citizens, but what is the posi-
zion they approve would be difficult to
lit neither expresses itself as
yfor prohibition or against it, but would
like for :prohibitionists to think it favor.
Eed prohibition, and 70, snti-prohibitionists
50 think it was opposed to prohibition.
:sghe Joasrncl renews its accusation that
sthe INTEI1IGENcER antagonized certain
members of the Legislature on prohibi-
.sion: We repeat that the INrEIL1GEN.
srER had taken its position before the
slaspre acted, and hence our antago.
ssamonnted simply to maintaining our
sit;on.
hs Journal says that its record for the
ineysars makes our article 60 for
d stating our belief that the
ardly ever takes position upon
supon which thereis public
he may be wrong, but our
that the Journal took no de-
nd as to the Stock Law, and
lona % g taxation to build the Savannah
kiley Railroad. These, with proh;bi-
: on, have been the subjects upon which
EEshsre vase division and strong public feel.
6ng ID oar midst. If we have erred in
bur EEour sIecollection we viii stand corrected
az tiei lid Journal nill give ua the articles
"a Re dates ID which ittook sides in
esssaftsi There hare also been
asy III ina pattsrs jn which i took no
a.ssz ags de5ied the charge Of being
r cool, 8 and stated that the
80 barge upon That point was
- Ia Wa had and have no