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


Livingston was under engageme"'
this State, and I felt sure he would
meet the Senator; but did not 1eel free
to make the arrangement for him with
out first consulting him. He was not
present because he was sick; and l
missed an engagement to fill the
place.
WRIGGLING OUT.
What is my individual recollection of
what the Senator said? To be frank,
understood him to say substantially
what the News and Courier, Herald
and News, and the Press and Reporter
represented him as saying-just what
Col. Talbert and DR.. Pope understood
him to say, as will be seen by their ut
terances reproduced on another page,
and just what a number Of other gen
tlemen present understood him to say.
was amazed, astouished, indignant at
such an utterance from such q 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. used an hour and four
minutes in opening. The Senator was
allowed to extend his remards. to about
two hours, with the understanding that
I should have like extension. This
would have given me near an hour for
reply, and 1 had ample notes to occupy
that time. The rain stopped me in
about fifteen minutes, and after dinner
I 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 a farmer was made in good faith on
information. am glad to be corrected
if nv information was incorrect.
DECLINES TO ADMIT AN ERROR.
The Senator asks for q retraction of
nv 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 a 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 a logical con-
clusion can be destroyed only by invali-
dating the premises. Premises may be
invalidated only by denial or retraction.
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 hi;
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 l appre'
hend. True, he refers to a verbatim
stenographic report, which he recog'
nizes as correct; and yet that Same
"verbatim stenographic report" (the
State's) so fagrantly misrepresenteo
him on two points Of his speech as tt
call forth from him card of correction
in that paper July 81. am quite sure
that it omitted several material point:
in my speech, though it was reason
ably accurate in what it did print.
While not distinctly denying thu
correctness Of these papers, as will b'
seen by reference to bis letter, he sim
ply asserts that even ''in its presen
shape" the report does not "admit o
the construction you ~ give it," Sure
ly the Senator recognizes that a ques
ton of construction is an eXceedingl.
variable quantity.
| orA1-rSC. U-1TtI WORMS