The weekly Union times. [volume] (Union C.H., South Carolina) 1871-1894, 1886-02-05
THE CENSUS CASE.
An 0pon Letter From Hon. w. H. Brawley, o.
Charleston.
CHARLESTON, S. c., j

In the last two numbers of your paper
there are several articles on the subject Of the
census and as it seems plain that you and
your friends wish to make political aud
sectional issue out Off to the injury of this
city, l feel constrained to pnt the facts
before the public which you have not done.
You denounce the failure of the General
Assembly to provide for the taking of the
census this year as great iniquity and
charge that the members from Charleston
put themselves on record as denying fair
representation to the balance of the State
You further say that 'the result is that the
old and obnoxious Parish system is porpet.
uated and upon this unjust, and I think,
unfounded charge, you cndeavor to stir up
sectional feeling and jealousy using this
language: IF Charleston, morbund, inert
and dead as she is, must dominate this
State by unfair and unequal represent alton
let it be known al once.' If Charleston
were, in fact, what you represent her to be,
it would be very discreditable and wholly
uncomfortable that such poor creature
should impose her will upon the whole
State but logical consistency is scarcely to
be expected of one whose imagination or
passion has SO far dominated his judgment
that recent and notorious facts are for
gotten.
will call them to your mind: 1st. 1t
is not true in fact that the members rrop,
Charleston in the House opposed the TAX
ing OF the census-the converse is true for
with the exception of myself every Charles
ton member voted for Mr.. Lees bill.
When that Bill, having passed the House,
was defeated in the Seuate aud according
to our usages could not be brought in again,
MIR. Lee, its author. had its main provis>
ions engrafted on the appropriation bill on
its third reading. Any one familiar with
the mode of doing business in the House
knows that this afforded an excellent op-
portunity for the Charleston members to
oppose effectively this measure by Indirect
methods and parliamentary tactics. They
did not avail themselves Of it on the con-
trary oil Of them except myself, voted for
the appropriation. Again when the appro-
priation bill came back from the Senate
with the census clause struck out, the
Charleston members voted with the major
ity Of the House against concurring in the
Senate amendments. Again they voted in
the same way when they sustained tho re>
port of the Conference committee who res
ported nou-concurreuco in the Senate
amendments. How can you say in face of
these facts, which you cannot dispute, that
the members from Charleston put them,
selves on record as denying fair represen-
tation to the balance of the State when
the record shows the contrary. You will
probably shift your ground now and charge
this 'iniquity,' so called, upon the Senators
from Charleston and not upon the men,
bers' as at first.
I'd. l think it is true that both Senators
from Charleston voted against Mr.. Lees
census till, as did a majority Of the Senate
know that they voted against tho attempt
to force tho same measure through on the
appropriation bill. scarcely see how any
Senator having duo respect to the dignity
and prerogative of that body could have
done otherwise. Here was o measure Of
public interest, involving large expendi-
turc of public mouey which they had de-
liberately considered and deliberately re.
jected. An attempt is made to
carry it through by extra consti-
tutional, it not unconstitutional methods or
to put it most mildly, by an usual pro-
cedurc and one Of bad example practice
50 pernicious and 80 liable to abuse that
both the Senate and House of Represen,
tatives Of the United States have adopted
rules prohibiting the engrafting of any leg
islaton whatsoever upon appropriation
bills. In my Judgment tho Senate was
clearly in its right in rejecting the bill and
tho appropriation. 1t was impertinent
then, and as it is now, to inquire into the
motives which controlled tho action of the
Senate. Nothing that you could say would
raise DOUBT in my mind as to the purity
patriotism and wisdom of the motives which
inAuenced Cokcr, Izlar, Munro and others
like them who voted against this measure
Nobody respects more than do the ability
and industry and attention to thcir dut;e.
which give the Senators from Charleston q
just measure Of influence in that body bu