The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1886-01-13
"Low. Country VI Up.Country."
GeorUetoDr ENQUIRER.

In an article under the above caption, our,
esteemed contemporary, the AbosuAIe Press
wv We H should ike ike for our friend the George.
to,un ENQUIRER TO explain why II Is that Char
lesion So persistentIy seeks to defeat the re-
apporttonment OF members In the House Of
double representation. Does the oEnqtaTer.
think that Charleston's effort to retain six
seats in the General Assembly, to which, she.
to thar portion of the State which Is cheated 3.
We would be glad tor the Enquirer to explain
| how 1t is that the lower counties so often sus-,
she Of
| vote with the up-countiy? 4
AS we have never been an apologist for:
Charleston's course on the re-apporti0nment
called upon TO explain that course. Nor, do
we recall any htterances of ours on the sub
ject, which make It peculiarly appropriate
! that the Press and Banner should address ~
edit tOrially y to the question OF taking 8cehsu6
Of the State, and that was in q bfisf para
graph ~ which we stigmatizea the sectional
and illiberal spirit OF Mr.. Rice. Of UnionJ
TAX en-, made the remarkable assertion that
the up.country had always been more patri5
should have an Increased representation in
the Legislature. g
| In condemning this narrow. minded speechs
we expressed no opinion Oh the census ques-s
ton. Does the Press and Banner endorse Mr..
Rices language? ~
| But we will answer some Of our coDtenapof.
ary's questions as plainly as they are put.
lfCharleston is seeking to retain represent
Is not justly entitled. her course certainly
ca mot commend itself to any one, much less
to that. section Of the State which Is
10 of have its rsSs ss Nor ,sR n
view, do we approve OF 1t. We believe that
each county In the State should have just
that proportion Of representation In the Leg
| islature to which 1t Is entitled under the Con-
stitution and law-no more and no less.
We cannot xplaln how 1t IL that the low
| er counties 80 often sustain Charleston" Per-
hsps 1t is mere coincidence. Perhaps they
Banner thinks they do. At any rate, we are
disposed to give the representatives from the
| low. country credit for as much patriotism
from the up-country. II the members from
the up-country chance to think alike and
vote alike on any gwen subject. 1t 1s their
right to do 80, and we have no disposition to
contemporary extend the same charity to-
wards his loW-country cousins? ..s.,.s. Fl
The Press and Banners last question may hs
clude Georgetown. On this very question Of
taking the census the Senator IRON George
town voted with the up.country; we have no
doubt that reference to the journals OF the
in which geographical and sectional lines
have been ignored III voting. Z
Our esteemed contemporary does not ask
for our opinion as to the propriety OF taking
the census and making q re e.app0rtionment.
But we will give II unsolicited.
We think the Legislature committed g
grievous error In not passing the census bill
at the session Of 1881. Having. failed In its
duty then, we think 1t should have passed
the bill ut the last session. There Is a differ
ence Of opinion as to whether the census thus
taken could be made available for the next
election, inasmuch az the Constitution Is
supposed to have intended the re-apportior,-
ment to be made at the regular session fol-
lowing the census, which, OF course, would be
too late to affect the elections this year. We
venture no judgment ON the constitutional
point. but whether it Is well taken or not, the
|apportionment could have been made next
winter, and would have gone into effect IN
the election Of 1888. And by this means the
existing inequalities In representation would
have been corrected seven years sooner than
they could be II no acLian was taken until
the next census year-lS95.