The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1891-09-09
to he unfairly shifted the ground of de-

ways Dc IdlFly met diIu dCColueO a hC"1
ing. The ear of The Gotten Giants
audience will never be denied an hon
est claim for justice that is couched in
courteous and fair language. Before
answering the Senator's questions, how
ever, we ask attention to some general
/. The senator justly recognized the
difference between the relation OF the
deDater and the editor, though he same
individual, to this whole subject.
:. The Cotton Plant was hot repre-
sentfn At the d"nat".
5 The iie ut tliis :,aper for August.
which was sent tb" senator from this
office, shows that tie hrst issue after
th1 debate had not word, editorlally
or otherwise, about the debate. The
speeches might have been allowed 20
rest upon their merit. But after the
newspaper supporters OF the senator.
in every possible ray, sought to preju.
dice the Alliance sid.. OF the discussions:
and after tue senator himself gave an
interview in Washington in which he
was represented as claiming everything.
having completely used up two SUBJ
treasury champions IN joint DEBATE At
Prosperity" it seemed not improper in
The Cotton Plant to point out some OF
the vulnerable points Of the senator's
speech.
/. Allreference to the particular mat
ter the senator objects to, after the
Aug. 8th issue, WAS IN repslliug the
assaults Of the senator's newspaper
friends, who apparently felt charged
with the defence Of the senator's re-
ported language. None OF them un-
til one last week, 80 far as l know, ques"
toned the possibility Of the language
being inaccurate; nor did such possibili-
ty ever occur TO my mind. They ac-
cepted the phraseology IS unQuestionab-
ly correct; but denied my construction
of 1t without giving.any rational mean
ing.
S. | was an Invited guest at Prosperi-
ty as much as WAS the senator-had
never been there before, and hence was
entitled to the Same consideration
claimed by him or that score.
AS q matter of fact, had no more 10
90 with arranging the order OF debate
than the senator. The customary Or
der Of depate was fixed upon by the
committee and 1 accepted il. Certain
ly had 10 Gssire to take any advan-
tage, and don't consider that had any
under the arrangement.
6. BY reading the whole corres2on-
derce published in the issue of Aug. s,
it will be seen that the original al
rangenlent was made either for my
self or some representative man.. Col
onel Livingston was under engage melt
IN this state, and felt sure &c would
meet the senator; but. did not feAl free
to make the arrangement for him VIII
out first consulting him. He was not
present because he was sick and I miss
ed an engagement to I'LL the place.
What IS my individual recollection
what the senator said? To befrank. l
understood him to say substantially
what The News and Courier, Herald
and News, and Tie Press and Reporter
represented him AS saying. Just what
Colonel Talbert and DR.. Pope under
stood him to say, as will be seen by
their rtterances reproduced on another
page; and just what number Of otaer
gentlemen present understood him 10
say. J. vas amazed. astOunded, 1ndiy-
nant at such an utterance from such a
source; and noted it down for reply, as
my notes show.
Why did 1 not reply to it that same
day? 1t does ssen that the sena-
tor should know the morning meeting
was bycken up by rain. 1t was agreed
that each of us should have an hour
and half. l was to divide my time so
as to have = reply | used an hour and
four minutes il opening. The senator
was allowed to extend his remarks to
about two hours, with the understand.
ing that I was to have a like extensl on.
This would have given me near an hour
for reply; and had ample notes to oc-
cupy that time. The rain stopped me
at about fifteen minutes; and after din
ner could not well continue even If
my voice had admitted OF it, because
the senator had disappeared,
The statement that the senator was
not q farmer was made in good faith
on information. I am glad to be cor
rectsd II my information was lncor-
rect.
The senator asks for retTaction OF
my editorial comment on the language
attributed to him by The News and
courier. This is evidently an inadyer-
tence on the part of so astute and logical
a mind as the senator's. Heshould first
dany at -leass using the language at
tributed to him. For, the comment
is deduction by logical and na atural
process from that language; and none
knows better than he, that a logical
conclusion can be destroyed only by in
yalidatingsths premises. Premises may
be invaIidated only by denial or retrac-
ton. The Irajor promise IN this case
is language attributed to ths senator.
Uoes he deny using the laguage or does
he wish to retract it? Since he has set
the example. he will excuse me for u.s.
ing the interrogative form. Does he
deny the report OF The News and Cou-
rier. of the Herald and News, (both his
staunch supporters,) and Of the Press
and Reporter. corroborated by DR.. Pope,
Col. Talbert and by number OF
ether witnesses?
So far he has not done so. as l appre-
hsnd. True. he refers to verbatim
stenographic report which he recog-
nizes as correct; and yet the same ''yer-
bstim stenographic report" The States)
so lagrantly mlsrepresented him on
two points of his speech as to call forth
from him card OF correction IN that
paper July 81. l am quite sure that 1t
omitted several material points in my
speech though it WAS reasonably accu-
rate in whatit did print.
While not distinctly denying the cor
rectness of the reports OF these papers,
as will be seen by reference to his let
ter, he simply asserts that even ''in its
present shape" the report does not "ad-
nit of the construction you Cd gave It,
Surely the senator recognizes tnat a
question of construction IS an exceed
lngly variable quantity.
recognize fully the right otany man
to interpret his own language and TO
say what he meant 1T to convey. have
no dssirs to hold him to a construction
he does not desire TO carry, and hence /
ask special attention to the senator's tx
planatiOn OF his position.