The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1886-01-27
CHARLBSTON'S USURPATI0N.
AN ABLE DEFENSE OF THE HoV$E OF
REPRESENTATIVES FROM CHARGES
WHICH WERE NEVER MADE.

AN ABLE DEFENSE OF Tak duVSA o1
REPRESENTATIVES FROM CHARGES
WHICH WE'RE NEVER MADE.
The Friendly Hand, I'm all Its Beauty
rnd Symmetry IL Gracefully Hei"
nm to Public Gaze, while Charles
toms Deformity, which Did the
Wrong. II not Exposed.
The Hon. Edward McCrady, OF Charleston
writes the following letter to the editor OF tue
.,reenville Ne,Ss. AS nobody, as far as we nave
noticed, has primarily charged Charleston
Representatives with being party 10 the
wrong which vas perpetratcd on the country,
nm the refusal of the Senate to take the census,
s;.e object of Nr. McCradys letter would seem
IN MS to be to direct attention to the
nn.country Senators who Joined Charleston
Senators in the refusal TO comply with the
r,ain mandate OF the Constitution, which
they had sworn to obey.
While the statements of Mr.. McCrady are IN
exact accord with the facts, so far as they CO.
vet Il Will be observed that he makes no REL
erence to the action Of the Charleston Scha-
tors. to whom alone the defeat Of the bill may,
in our opinion, be justly charged. Not"ith-
standing the remarkable fact that the Charles
ton Representatives were almost "a unit Tor
the census, yet 1t is not denied by Colonel Nc
Grady that Chareston's Senators had much
to do in the defeat OF the census bill. His let
ter does not alter the fact that Charleston has
double represent ntation in the Senate, and al
most, il not quite, double representation In
the House of Representatives. His letter does
not show that any Charleston man has ever
mt any time sought to reduce the representa-
uion in the Senate to OR equitable basis, nor
does his letter make 1T clear that Charleston
Senators have made any effort to take the CEN
sus Whereby Charleston would have to sur
render the seats in the House of Representa-
uives to which she is not entitled.
Col. McCrsey speaks so pausibly and so
ably that he can almost make the wrong the
right appear, but a simple pertinent fact, is
worth much fine argument and many lrreie-
want recitals- Here is the letter:
To the Editor of the Greenriuc Ne,cs:
SIR-Your editorials in regard to the census
question are founded on n nisapprehension
OF the facts which beg you Will allow me 10
correct. In no sense was the question one oe
tween the Hp-country and low-Gountry: une rtIe
demonstrate this. What nre the facts?
On the 29th November, 1874. Mr.. Raysor, OF
Orangeburg. and Mr.. Lee, Of Sumter; each
gave notice of a bill upon the subject. 1HouSe
journal 81 p. 76 7S.) Each of these gentlemen,
it will be observed. is from the fow.country-
from the low-country. even II you restrict, as
YOU seem inclined to do, that designation to
the counties or districts IN wnlch tne par,sn
YOU will remember, was divided into the par
ishes of Orange and st. Mathews, and Sumter
into those Of Claremont and Clarendon. 30
the proposition for the taking OF the census
under the Constitution to which his EXcrllen-
-cy the Governor hai called attention In his
messages, came from the elow-country-indeed
from the parishes. ,s
his bill-a bill which he stated had been care
: fully prepared by Mr.. Dibhle (the member rep
resenling Charleston and Orangeburg IN Con
gress) SO as to conform TO the United states
law, and entitlc the State to the appropriation
by the United States allowed If the census
should he taken in 1885. EHouse Journal, 1854,
page 97.) This bill was ut once referred TO tne
Judiciary committee and reported iaVoranly
upon by Mr. Simonton. the chairman, on the
81. (HeuSe Journal, 1881. page ~: MI. Lee
introduced his bill on the 5th. This bill pro-
vided q simpler and cheaper method OF tax
Ing the census than that required by the stat-
ute or the United States. and was designed 10
meet what was the re0t obstacle 10 the tGk.ng Q,
the census, rig: Its enp"stSe. Nlouse journal
1854. page 1907 Mr.. Lees bill was referred 10
out recommendation on December 18TH.
gHouse Journal, lSA, page 259) Both these
bills we're laid OH the table on the 10th. for on
the llth the jndicary committee had intro
sduced bill of it's own, which had been pre-
pared by Mr.. Simonton, the chairman. after a
very careful consideration by the committee,
and after hearing Major Harry Hammond,
who appeared before the committee Ia the IN
terest of accurate statistical information, 10
urge Il strict compliance with the provision OF
the general government upon the subject.
The debate on the question In the House on
the 18th December. took place on thiS oa'i o.
the committee drawn by Col. Simonton- Sc
the subject was considered on bill drawn by
another member from the low-country-in.
deed from Charleston.
Your correspondent, "Carolina." In his let
ter of Nov. 18th says: ~ do not recall that q
single Democratic Representative from the
tide water section raised his voice In bchall OF
compliance with the fundamental law. ihls
is mortifying. but the fact is that 1, for one
did. on this very occasion and repeat edlS al
forwards raise my voice, however feeble, ana
did urge as earnestly, Mr.. Editor, as you or he
haVe done that 1t was our duty under the Con
stitution to provide for taking the census.
The bill prepared By MIR. Sim0nton was pass
ed and went to the Senate: Did the attack
alpon it there come from Charleston or the
page $5s, Mr.. Maxwell moved to strike out
the enacting clause Of the bill" which was
done by q vote of l9 to Ii. Where was Ar.
Maxwell from! From the up country! From
williamsburg. .DarlinytoE.' Marion, Union ano
Fairfield voting with Mr.. Maxwell against the
bill. white the Senator'S from Horny and
Georgetown voted for it. Upon the de1eat o.
sthe bill in the Senate and the renewal of the
discussion in the House on q motion by ar
Lee to take recess until January, 1883, IN.
stead Of adiourping. SO rs to make another ef
fort to provide for census, again seconded
ihis effort.
But again, when the subject was removed in
the daily papers In April last, by an ARTICLE
generally attributed TO Mr.. Lee, urging the
Hiovernor to take the census under the law as
it stood, both Mr.. Simonton and myself again
Joined him in hsappeal. Mr.. Simonton Eti
ting under the signature OF AS, and under
that OF "Amemberof the House from Charles
tom" Mr.. Simonton urging an extra session o
the Legislature; I agreeing with Mr.. Lee that
lit could be done without. If you have file a
the Neus amt fnnrier and will turn to the as
.eue Of the 9TH May last you will find our COM
municatiOns.
When the Legislature met at its last session
came up for consideration as n special order
ON the 5th December. the motion to strike ou
the enacting words did not come from Chnrcs
ton or from the low-country, but from New
berry. Mr.. Pope made the motion, and the
only votes for the motion were from Mr.. Braw
tigrew from Darlington. Mr.. Schumpert from
Newberry and Surratt from Union; while
Mr.. Speaker Smons. Messrs. Baker, Burke
Fickea, Kennedy, McCrady, j. Ancrum ST
mons and SimOnton put ourselves on recorc
for the bill. Messrs. Gonzales, McHugh anc
:Mcares were absent Only six in the House
Including but one from Charleston. Two from
Newberry, two from Darlington and one from
Union were opposed to the measure. Eighty
voted for it. inciadino the scLoss Charleston dele
.gdtisn present, b4tt one.
When the bill again reached the Senate
,yb ora did tho onnDSi lion again first show 1t