The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1888-01-25
THE NEWS AND COURIER.
ITS PERSONALITIES REPLIED TO WITH
PERSONALITIES.


The MctrOp0litiOn Dcfamcr of Char
actrr Wants DuckinG Stools for
Honest Country Journalists who
may Protest Against Its Disrcput
able Practices.
In noticing the forced withdrawal of Colonc
j. y. Thomas from the editorial control OF thu
C01unbiu Register because of his refusal to sac
ricc principle for place, we said:
IF the Register is State paper, speaking for th'
people of the Whole State, then we submit that th
resignation of Colonel Thomas was nncacd for, AM
the requirement that the paper should advocate par
cuIar line of policy for any particular locality, wa
also a mistake.
'Thc conduct of the Ne,us and Courier in alway
esponsnc the cause of Charleston, no matter whethe
or not the interests of that city were at variance will
the interests of the people, is scarcely less obccOna
bile than the surroundings which compel the rcScna
on of the editor upon whom the eyes of this country
arc being turned and to whom We look for IN intel
gent and correct expression public opinion in Soutl
Carolina
"Are tho people of the State to be forever reegaet
to the rear that the city of Charleston and the Co
lunbia canal may be brought conspicuousy forward
"Shnl the people have no paper which may truly
represent their interests and which shall bo free from
the prciudices of the particular locality in which
is printcd?"
in tho following paragraphs. seems moro
anxious to put the Press mad Banner lr
Il false position. than to set itself in {
favorable light before the public. 1t will bt
noticed that more space Is taken up with ir
relevant personalities. than is occupied In
showing that the conduct Of tho Ne,0s anc
Courier does not subordinate the interests o
the State to the interests OF the city of Char
lesion. We quote both the personalities anL
the reply in full, as follows:
"WANTED-A DrCKING STooL.-The AbbcviUt
Press and Banner Is cternally scolding its contem
polaries of the State press. ltsays great many very
good things but In its zeal TO keep things straight o
to say something smart, 1t sometimes stretches it:
facts to suit tho comments that it desires to make
For instance it went out of its way last week to shy
that the Nc,Us and Courier always espoused the
cause of Charleston, no matter whether "or not tho
of city were at variance with the inter
"ests Of the people"
"a more fragrant msreprescnt of the policy O
the NeWS and Courier has rarely been made. Ar
appeal to the records will show that the charge Of oul
Abbevilc contemporary is without foundation In TACT
The NeaUS and Courier knows no sectional lines
and has worked with what zeal and ability 1t could
command for the welfare Of the entire Statc. There
are of course local interests which cannot be ignored
or neglected. but these interests have never been al
lowed to interfere with the endorsement Of any
scheme which has been directed to the promotion OF the
larger interests Of the State"
We ask the reader to note that not one word
of personalities occurred in our article. We
ask the reader TO note also that we will in
dulge in personalities only to the extent that
may be deemed necessary In replying to his
We believe as rule that good newspapers
and gentlemen are not wont to rush into per-
sonalities, but if the Nc,Us and Courier lacks
the ability to defend itself in fair and hon.
orabe discussion, we will for this once, accept
his offer Of induglng in personalities.
We will, at the beginning state that we
have no files OF the Nears and Courier before
us; that we speak from memory; that II we
fall into any error OF statement, we VIII most lost
make due and proper amends for
the error, If pointed out to us; that we would
have made no answer at all to simple plea
Of "not guilty." but since that paper has in
lulged in personalities, we Will attempt to re-
ply 10 the answer, and will then pay such at
tention 10 the irrelevant personalities as we
may think they deserve.
We now give some OF the reasons for induc-
ing us to the belief that the interests Of the
cal interests of the city Of Charleston.
We believe the Nc,cS and Courier has always
maintained that Charleston should have two
senators, while the country districts have but
squared by the rule of right? Is Charleston
tile "larger interest,"" that the Ncrs and Cou-
ricr should advocate the discrimination?
We believe the Ne'US and Courier, n few
years ago, opposed taking the census on the
alleged ground of economy. The constitu-
Lional requirement was defeated before tho
Legislature. Was the course OF the NcWs and
Courier in advocating its defeat, .'for tho larg-
er interest" }" or was vas, IT prompted p py o the iaet
tives in the General Assembly TO which che
was not entitled and which that paper de-
sired her to hold, regardless of the rights
Of others? Was 1t for "the larger interest"
That the country districts are cheated out of
their proper representation in tho General
Assembly?
We believe the Ne,os and Courier, after lend.
ing its influence IN defeating the effort TO
have the lawful census taken at the proper
time and according to the requirement of the
institution, opposed the taking OF the cen.
sus on constitutional grounds, when the ques-
perpctuatng the cheating Of the country
districts for "the larger interests OF the
State?" Are Charlestonians our own men
and brethren? If so, was 1T right in the
NelOS and Courier to use its influence TO per.
petuate q wrong whereby Charleston should
lake from the country districts seats In the
legislature which did not belong to her? Is
IL for ''the larger interests of the State" that
Charleston takes our places in the Legisla-
turr?
Ioes anybody suppose that the Nctps and
Courier would have opposed to re-apportion-
ment of delegates if that city had gained q
member by the rc-apporlionment?
Did not the Ne,Us and Courier favo: the CIV
ing Of exclusive rights to Char estonians to
DIG phoSphateS, so that they might possibly
combine and settle the prices for all fertilizers
Of which the phosphate rock may be Il con-
ponent part? Is coterie of Charleston gen.
tlemen i'the larger interests of the State7"
Did not the NcWs and Courier oppose the
granting Of charter to Robinson to run
railroad across the State to the city Of Savan.
nah, and into the State of Georgia? Dldany-
body ever hear Of any other reason for urg-
ing the refusal, except that the road did not
90 to Charleston? All this too in the face OF
the fact that Robinson asked for no money.
He only wanted the privilege, which, if grant
ed, would put upon the tax books two mil
lion dollars worth Of property. Did the Ne,rs
md Courier oppose this railroad? If so, was
II for "the larger interest Of the State?" II
for "the larger Interest" was not Charleston
the larger interest?"
Did not the Ne,ps and Cuurier favor the es-
adjustments Of the Railroad commission? :?
We thought the effect of that commission
would bc TO discourage the building Of Rail-
'oads in the up-country.
Did not the NeWS and Courier favor the ex-
emption Of new cotton mills from taxation
or n period Of years? Was this course for the
public good, or was IL for ''the larger Interest"
1t Charleston capitalists who might wish 10
invest their money, without taxation? OF
;ourse, wo do not forget that the alleged rea-
son at the time was to bring foreign capital TO
he State, very little Of which ever came. But
etthe Nc,pS and Courier state square and hon.
st facts as 10 whether It's course was, or was
lot. prompted mainly 10 favor Charleston
capitalists?
Did not the Neacs and Courier oppose the
same exemption TO new railroads which was
.ivcn to the new cotton mills? BE it remem.
)ered that the new cotton mills were built
argely by Charleston money-and the new
ailroads were graded in the up-country by
arge debts against tho respective towns and
countless while the superstructures were built
entirely by foreign capital Poor people in
he country were denied the benefits OF the
increased taxation which the burden OF their
lebt had brought. Rich capitalists OF Charles.
on and other parts of the State were simply
from taxation, and, in violation of
he very words of the Constitution, were eX.
used from paying their share 10 the support
)f the government Must the Constitution be
when capitalists are interested,
md as long as Charleston has what does not
,clong to her? Was not the advocacy of such
, line Of action by the Ne,US and Courier for
the larger interest of Charleston and not for
,llc "largcr interests of the State?'
Did not the Nc,rS ana Courier favor the cX-
cusing of Il delinquent phosphate company,
from paying an accumulated tax OF many
hfaiLh