The weekly Union times. [volume] (Union C.H., South Carolina) 1871-1894, 1886-02-05
JoSEsyILLE, s. c., Feb. 2nd..lss6.

To EDITOR UNION TIMEs.-I send you below
q clipping from an editorial in the Abbeville
Medium, in reply to Mr.. Brawley, OF Charleston,
to the article of Mr.. McCraiy which you re-
published in your last issue. ask you to pub
lish this clipping ms going to substantiate the
ground which took in my last communication.
SUBSCRIBER.
Mr.. Brawley, however, seems TO take par-
ticular umbrage at our charge that the members
from Charleston "put themselves on record as
denying fair representation to the balance of
the State" and proceeds to give certain "facts."
Let us take this clause in its proper con
tion. 1t occurs in an article (of ours) on the So
called rider and reads:
1.-The manner Of taking the census was pre-
scribed by law aud, Of course, the work was to
be paid for. The appropriation was defeated
by long and specious argument that the
anne endment was "rder.' II was absurd, and
nobody knew II better than the members from
Charleston who put themselves on record rs de-
nying a fair representation to the balance of
the State
Here is the time and place of Charlcston's de-
fection. Here is where she put herself on rec
ord. 1t needs but one fact to prove it, and that
is the vote on the question of receding from the
census appropriation. Ii stood, as near as we
can recall, 5G to 40 in favor of receding and
eleven members from Charleston voted to re-
cede. Thus they put themselves on record as
"denying fair representation to the balance
of tho State" This was the crlcial test and
Charleston was in the vocative. She was in
full accord with the House until the decisive
moment md then by her eleven votes refused to
sustain the appropriation aad so will have FIVE
more Representatives than she is entitled o
for some years to come, and also unjust pre-
ponderance in State and Congressional conven-
tons. This very vote did deny fair represen-
tntion to other parts of the State and did keep
five extra members for Charleston, and she put
herself on record. But Mr.. Brawley snys that
twhen Charleston turned and hed) the question
was not as to taking the census, but "shall the
House force the Senate to accept its views on
this subject by defeating the appropriation bill ?"
We heard Speaker Simons pui no such aues-
tion to the House. If Mr.. Brawlcy thought
| that was the question we excuse him for that
vote, although he was wrong on the census from
first to last. If Speaker Simons had put any
other question than the usual parliameu tary
one, he wovld have framed II somewhat as fol-
lows: "Will the House stand by the Constitu-
| ton, and will the members stand by their oaths
TO support it?" and Charleston would have
voted "No."
Mr.. Prawley need not have looked further
than this vote to find where Charleston power
was used for sectional advantage. 1t may
not have been so intended, but such has been
the effect for she will have five more Represcn-
tatives Counting by the U. s., census) than
| she is entitled to.
Mr.. Brawley is the last man Of Charleston
who should have attempted to defend his col
leagues. lie voted against tho census every
| time and does not even give the economy ex-
cuse. If lie did so because the amendment was
'rider" he was strangely inconsistent in
voting for two additional professors in the Uni
versty which was clearly against the law. We
| heard nothing from Charleston about this being
q rider although the effect of that item in
| the app ropriation bill was to make two new Of.
hcers and provide pay for them.
If to claim equal rights for Beaufort Sumter
Laurens, Sr artanburg and other counties i.
sectionalsm, we may be counted in. Wo will
not be diverted from the true issue hut will con
tinuc to show the great injustice done the Who'll,
| State