The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1891-09-10
W RIGGLING OUT.

L "
such an utterance from such b source,
and noted it down for reply, as my notes
show.
Why did I not reply to it that day?
It does seem that the Senator should
know the morning meeting was broken
up by rain. 1t was agreed that each of
US should have an hour and a
half. Twas to divide my time so as to
have reply. I used an hour and four
minutes in opening. The Senator was
allowed to extend his remards. to about
two hours, with the understanding that
should have like extension. This
would have given me near an hour for
reply, and I had ample notes to occupy
that time. The rain stopped me in
about fifteen minutes, and after dinner
could not we'll continue even if my
voice had admitted OF it, because the
Senator had disappeared.
The statement that the Senator was
not farmer was made in good faith on
information. am glad to be corrected
if my information was incorrect.
DECLINES TO ADMIT AN ERROR.
The Senator asks for retraction of
my editorial comment on the language
attributed to him by the News and
Courier. This is evidently an inadver-
tence on the part Of so astute and logi-
cal mind as the Senator's. He should
first deny at least using the language
attributed to him. For, the comment
is deduction by logical and natural
process from that language; and none
knows better than he that logical con-
clusion can be destroyed OILY by invali-
dating the premises. Premises may be
invalidated only by denial or retractlon.
The major premise in this case is lam
guage attributed to the Senator. Does
he deny using the language or does he
wish to retract it? Since he has set the
example, he will excuse me for using
the intorrogative form. Does he deny
the report of the News and Courier, of
The Herald and News, (both bis
staunch supporters,) and of the Press
and Reporter, corroborated by DR.. Pope,
Col. Talbert and by a number of other
witnesses?
So far he has not done SO, as appre-
hend. True, he refers to "verbatiln
stenographic report, which he recog-
7nizes as correct; and yet that same
s.s sS.,1S5atim stenographic report" (the
state'sas "a asssea#]5;'m ss ssty 'misrepresented
him on7ssv tooints of his speech as to
call forth tos,.rn him card of correction
in that paper 972July 81. I am quite sure
that it omitte,1,i!d several material points
in my speec,. p, though it was reason
ably accuratr in what it did print.
While neu:s;, distinctly denying the
correctness ifs these papers, as will be
seen by ref 10 IL ..nce to his letter, he sim
ply assa1s' iccu:hat even 'in its present
shapeshef! 'r'eport does not "admit Of
the caaHrre !, er tion you 1) give it." Sure
ly tbesn, J,.l or recognizes that a ques-
ton ofa55't Instruction is an exceedingly
variable. quantity.
1,;.rAY1SG WITH WORDS.
J reen .ognize fully the right of any
man tA, > interpret his own language and
to saE% what he meant it to convey. |
havet55 no desire to hold him to con-
struction he does not desire it to carry,
and hence I ask special attention to
the Senator's explanation of his posi-
ton.
But I must hold that in the absence
of limitations upon the meaning OF
language, it is legitimate to construe II
according to thc ordinary rules OF con-
struction. I submit it, therefore, to the
Senator as a fair minded and logical
reasoner, whether the language cred
tied to him by these three papers, anG
| allowed 10 PASS "itiio"' "e''-
ino in mind always that the discus
sion was upon the only plan that pro-
nosos to borrow at per cent. and that
the Alliance is the only body IN TINS
State which advocates such pian-1
submit to him, say, as fair minded
. man and a logician, whether the con-
struction I placed upon It was not
logical and natural.
7 submit to him further, whether
until his correction and explanation
apneared, the public were not Justil'eo
in interpreting it in natura! ano
rational way with the context; ano
whether he should not at least give
some other construction to the IAN
| guage, if indeed he does lot deny 1t.
F1DDLERs THREE, AND VERY GOo1
FIDDLERS WERE THEY.
T 1t might be pertinent to ask also
since the interrogative style is in vogue
! why I am singled out for rebuke II
this matter. The application OF hi
0 language to 10000 farmers of the Stat
e was not even original with the CottoI
Y Plant. Had the Senator remained t
e hear Col. Talbert, he would have hear'
; that application distinctly made AM
resented, as appears in his printe'
r speech in another column. Dr.. Pop
made virtually the same application
= and it was widely printed over his owl
+ signature. Yet in MS Asheville inter
r view the Senator passes over and a