The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1886-09-22

Reply of Committeeman Hrawlcy to
Captain Farlcy's Structures.
To tie EL|UOr OIiHr Pp.JiStcr.

4 " tt' i<'''f " tH' ftJtStff
am informed that Capt. Farley
has published in your paper some
time ago II criticism Of the action o.
the State Executive Committee il
the matter of the nomination of ;
candidate for the Office Of Adiutant
and Inspector General, laying &
large measure of responsibility fol
the result upon Capt. Dawson and
myself, with some personal abuse.
have not read his communication
and, with matters Of grave moment
now pressing upon nc, it is not like,
~ that shall look it up or find time
for any reply to it; but inasmuch as
this is a subject Of party and public
interest, the public has the right to
know all that those who have been
charged with Il public duty have
done in its behalf. will there.
fore take the time to say all that
scems ncedrul.
1t seems to have been assumed by
Captain Farley that there was some
obligation upon the committee to
select him rs the candidate because
he received the next highest vote in
the Convention. This assumption is
i'll founded, and there is no rule or
usage to sustain it. | the action o
said convention WAS to be regarded
as having any controlling force with
the committee, the effect wouid have
been just the converse Of such pre-
tension, for it indicated that Captain
Farley was not the choice Of the
party. lis claims had been pre-
scntcd and rejected. II it were of
any consequence to do So. ! could
furnish satisfactory evidence that he
was not even the choice Of many of
those WHO voted for him, such votes
having been influenced by other con-
sldcratiOns. If it was the desire Of
the party that such Il rule should he
adopted, it would be Il simple matter
to change the constitution and the
Executive Committee would be re.
licvcd Of u responsibility which |
presume none Of its members seek.
Until such change is adopted. that
committed would be rccrcant to it's
trust 10y cvadimy It's duty under surl,
q pretcNt
That the Cuinmittuc did not feel
bound to give controlling weight to
the vote cast for Captain Farley in
the Convention was not due to my
influence, nor could it be attributed
to any personal hostility to Captain
Farley, for several members of the
committee had voted for Captain
Farley in the Convention, yet. as
members, Of the committee, persist,
emily voted for another candidate.
Indeed, the field OF selection was
much larger. Many gentlemen we're
candidates before the committee who
had refused to 90 before the Convcn-
tion in opposition to that faithful
soldier and modest citizen, General
Manageable, who was then dying of
wounds received in his country's
service
In the opinion Of some it did not
enhance Captain Farlcy's claims that
he had not been similarl y restrained.
Feeling that it was desirable that
the choice Of the committee should
receive general approval, supported
Mr.. Lees resolution that a two.
thirds vote should be required to
nominate. Captain Farlcy's sup
portcrs did not. Had they done
so, it is probable that the result
would have been different, but it
would not have added 20 Captain
Farley's chances.
In regard to any combination be-
tween Captain Dawson and myself
to defeat Captain Farley, may say
there was none. reached Columbia
from the mountains only few hours
before the meeting OF the committee
ana had no conversation with him
regarding the canli'atcs. except as
to which ofthc Charleston candidates
we would present.; and having agreed
that Captain Holmes Was the most
available, we supported him as lrng
rs there seemed any prospect OF
clecting him. Failing in that VIC
supported Major Mills Of Chester,
whom we believed to be cmincntly
qualified for the position. and after.
ward Colonel Coward.
On the eighteenth ballot there oc.
cured change which indicated that
the choice was narrowed to Captain
l'onham or Captain Farley. The
Thought came to each OF us at Che
same instant, and rs instantly we
determined TO vote for Captain Bon.