The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1891-01-14
of exclusion. 1t could not be the loss Of

of exclusion. 1t could not be the loss O.
Hampton he deplored, because Hamp
ton was caucus man as matter o.
course. 1t could not be Donaldson
whose loss he deplores, for his (Donald
sons political views did not admit o.
freedom from caucus influence. (His
tory, by the way, furnishes no instance:
of nobler bearing during the fight an(
defeat than that of Donaldson anC
Hampton.}
Then where and what is the loss
Col. Keitt was the only candidate Cir
an uncommon sense) who was not
elected
The Colonel seems a good deal ex'
asperated because l called in, as be
says, the Alliance caucus, and he pro-
ceedS to state what tranSpired in the
former Alliance caucus. He must ex-
cuse me from discussing publicly what
tranSpired behind the closed doors OF
an Alliance meeting. The pledge at
initiation expressly forbidS this. But
assuming that the brothers premises
are correct, let us see how his conclu-
sions follow. He says that the ALI
ance had majority in the General AS
sembly and could have elected its man.
He says, further, that the attendance
upon the Alliance caucus was about
forty. It required eighty-one to elect
a Senator on joint ballot. He cannot
certify that even ali those forty mem
bers present, as he says, at the Alli-
ance caucus were unpledged or agreed
| with him as to the party caucus clause;
and yet he asserts without qualifica-
! tion that the Alliance could have elect
ed its man Independent of the Reform
members, who were in full sympathy
with the Alliance, had stood shoulder
to shoulder with us, and had in many
instances come to the Legislature on
Alliance issues, but who were ineligible
to membership. For my part, even if
it had been possible to elect a Senator
within ourselves, which l deny under
existing circumstances, with Alliance
demands absolutely secure in the hands
of Irby, Donaldson or keitt-the only
men who were to come before that
general caucus as Reformers-1 was
opposed to excluding from participa-
ton men just as true to our principles
and honest, though they were ineligible
10 mem bership.
Col. keitt lays much store by the
fact that some Alliance men could not
gain access to the Reform caucus, but
he fails to state that those Alliance
men could not 60 into a caucus of Re
formers because they scere pledged to
Hampton.
But l did not act wholly upon my
own judgement in calling the Alliance
causuS. All the Alliance mem candi-
dates were consulted either in person
or through their representatives, and |
thought had their concurrence in do
ing 80. The only objection l heard was
raised after / had notified the general
Reform caucus of our intention to
meet with them. Col keitt says "sold
out the Alliance for the shadow OF be-
ing Governor of the State four years
hence" I deny the charge in toto and
cite him to his proofs. l take it that
my denial is worth fully as much as his
assertion that he was at no time can
didate in common acceptance of that
word, and so some proof will be neces-
sary on his part. And what does he
submit in the nature of proof? g.
quotation from the Worlds Columbia
notes, in which it was stated inciden-
tally that I was being carefully groom
ed tor the Governorship in 1884," only
this and nothing more. These are the
terms of the trade he says.
The childlike simplicity of this con-
ception is possible only in mind ac-.
customed to uncommon attitudes.
Certainly one of US common minds
would not be content with a shadow.
That sort of trading, presume, is a
peculiarly of uncommon minds. Here
is his argument. He says the World
published that shadow afterward /
led off into general Reform caucus,
therefore the shadow was the cause of
my leading off-post hoe propter hoe.
This is logical conclusion with ven
geance. 1t is the logic of Sublimated
puerility.
No rational mind will accept this as
proof. He says there was trade.
This necessitates purchaser aswell as
a seller. Let him name the other party
to the trade. or else stand before the
public to which he has appealed, rather
than to the Order he is sworn to obey,
as having spoken against brother
without cause.
He should know was not in the city
when the World report was written.
and had not been for week. Let him
call up the man to whom or from whom
came any proposition concerning my
self and the Governorship. Let him
call witnesses within or without the
State. Hehas the World behind him.
He has had good deal to say about
loyalty to the Order: about crime
against the Order by the election of
Irby, an honored member of the Order,
to the Senate. In my humble judge
ment, loyalty to the Order means loval-
ty to its cardinal principles-6rotherly
lo0e, charity; crime against the Order
is inseparable from disregard of these
principles. That quality of man, as
we'll as of an Allianceman, is highest
which takes brother by the hand and
says to him, go, sin no more" Be-
tween this quality and that which
thanks God II am not as other men,
there is the whole diameter of exis-
tence. ]. VIM. Stokes,
President S. G. State Farmers Alli-
ance.
Orangeburg, January 5, 1891.
a Short Honeymoon.
DEHvEp Tan S-The honeym0cn of