The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1891-01-15

have just read in your issue OF January
3 the il-timed, not to say ill-tempered,
article of Col. Ellison S. Keitt anent the
Senatorial contest in which he was in
terested as candidate, "not in common
acceptance Of that word," as be himself
puts 1t.
Yuur comments thereon are eminently
pertinent, entirely fair, size up the situa-
.iou fairly we'll, and doubtless give utter
=: &c to the undercurrent of conviction
,n.:ning through the minds of all think
li.g men at all acquainted with the facts
il. t,o case. at the same time, as you
iniraate, some expression is proper and
rxp cted from me; though, as you justly
.ci.,a,k, no good csn possibly result to
t..e Order or to the public service by this
public parade of a purely family affair.
feel sure, therefore, that you niA NOT
refuse to d reply the facilities of y5dr
witely.read journal that have already
beeu accorded the untimely attack.
Asa whole the srticle in question is
unique. Analysis shows it to contain 8
modicum OF augmentation, considerably
more of defamation and innuendoes,
aud a column of animus. With it's argu-
ment I shall deal principally with its
animus only incidentally, secoDdarily.
Its defamation I have neither titae nor
patieuce to discuss. 1t is strangely
familiar, and oft repeated story.
Divested OF it's defamation and innu.
endo, Col. Keitt's propositions are four,
and to the discussion of these PROPOSE
tions I shall strive to bring absolute fair
ness, but at the same time entire frank
ness and rigid logic. 1fthe application
of these tests to aepersions upon the
characters of his breLhren-aspersluns as
as ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS in
apparent harshness on my part, such
hardness must be attributed to the
inexorable conditions of the case as
made up by him, and not to any unfra-
ternal feeling on my part. The constitu.
tion of our Order forpids, as understand
it, my indulging before the public
through the press in animadversions upon
a member of the Order. Provision is
made within the Order itself for the
of all differences between
members. I shall endeavor, therefore,
to confne myself to his propositions:
l. Col. Keitt holds that an Alliance
man, who is member of Congress, com.
mits perjury "if he is in any degree inau-
enced by party caucus" In justification
of his charge he quotes an agreement
signed by committees of the National
Alliance and of the Knights of Labor,
which agreement, he intimates. every
Alliance is sworn to obey. In view of
his ne Plus ultra manner on this point
one can scarcely help wondering V ether
Col. Keitt has ever read the express reser-
vation precedent to the pledge taken by
every applicant for initiation and upon
which the pledge is conditioned. There
are not few men in the Order as true,
as honest and (ifi it be not treason to say
it, as intelligent and statesmanlike as
Col. Keitt, who think that the agreement
quoted by him, in so far as it relates to
party caucus, Conflicts with the freedom
of their political views" This question
has never been adjudicated, and in cases
of conflict of opinion, especially among
brethren and equals, a commendable
modesty would suggest the suppression of
intemperate charges.
2. His second proposition, as we'll as
the third, is q corollarY of the first, and
stands or falls with it. The imputation
of perjury to Senator Irby, therefore, ia
not justified in the premises. Senator
Irby, whose record as an Alliance man,
it seems to me, will suffer 40 disparage-
ment by comparison even with Col.
Keitt's, proposes to work for the Alliance
demands through the Democratic party.
Col. Keitt's political conscience is not
offended by the party caucus clause; !;
Irby's is-thet is the whole of it. In our
judgment the shameful insinuatious aud
offensive epithets aimed by indirection
against his brother Alliance man by Col.
Keilt are wholly unworthy and inexcusa.
BILE upon any conceivable principles
either Of public utility or of Alliance
poli,y.
But Senator Irby is abundantly able to
take care of himself, even if it were
probable that the general puh:c, to
whom Col. Keit. has appealed lhisJ case
of distinctly AlIisncr jurisdiction, would
not make just discrimination betwf he
merits and the spirit Of the two ,..t...
8. His third proposition foil .@s by
implication from the second, sndfalls to
the ground with it. but the Colonel must
not evade the logic which he has invok-
ed. Ex-senator Irby is guilty of perjury,
as charged by Col. Keitt under the terms
of the agreement quoted, then is every
Alliance member of the General Assem-
bly, involved in the same condemnation,
Col. Keitt being judge, jury and prose-
cutting attorney in the ca:e-except those
who voted for Col. Kei,t. Now, since
not even his supporters voted for him on
the last several ballots, all are perjurers
by reason of their failure to vote for Col.
Keitt. This conclusion is unavoidable,
because the agreement quoted reads:
'We will support for office only such men
as can be depended upon to enac' these
Into statute law uniufuenced
by party caucus" This, Col. Keitt says,
every member of the Alliance is sworn
to obey. Very welI-Col. Keitt was the
only candidate member of the Alliance
who considered that freedom from party
caucus influence was not in conflict with