The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1892-07-20
WON'T NAME THE MAN.

When we inquired of the Advocate
what it meant by a reference to gam
bling and drinking Baptist we had the
right to do so. That unfortunate and
mysterious fellow has been repeatedly
lugged before the public in articles in
which politics was the topic. Knowing
Of no individual of that description who
has anything to do with this campaign,
and believing there is none such, we ask
ed for information as to his identity, and
stated that if the Advocdte really knew
of no such a character, then the logical
inference was that that imaginary, drink
ing and gambling Baptist was used as a
disguise oyer which to apply opprobrious
epithets to all Baptist people.
If the AGuoeate knows the individual
it carefully guards his name, while ad-
vertising his vices, and the same mystery
surrounds the reference as before that
paper published column or two of
statements intended to be explanatory
and whining reproaches at this paper for
criticising its indlscreet reference, to say
the least Of it. Upto date every reader
must judge for himself whether the sins
Of some unfortunate Baptist were alluded
to, or whether, in the absence of that in
diyidual, a specific allusion was made
which was intended to include the whole.
We could not bring ourselves to believe
that the Advocate had in mind either Mr..
Hiott or Mr. Sheppard, both prominent
Baptists, who are candidates on the Con-
seryative State ticket. The sobriety and
morality Of these gentlemen are known
Of all men. The fact that they were
placed in nomination by a Convention of
citizens Of the highest character, mem
tally and morally, is sufficient guarantee
Of that.
The drinking and gambling Baptist
must be Conservative, otherwise the
Advocate would not SO cruelty expose
his shortcomings 10 the public eye. Yet,
where are we to find him? Is there an
other Baptist on the Conservative ticket :?
But he wouldn't be there If he was adj
dicted to those vicious habits. Who can
he be? We will have to give it up, but
win continue to wonder what the Advo-
cate meant, anyhow.
AS to this paper owing the Advocate
an apology, that was mere ruse 10
mislead and to create sympathy. The
Adpoeatc didn't expect an apology. It
should do the apologizing act. It owes it
to either an individual Baptist or to the
whole denomination for calling attention
to what it must know 70 be the sins Of
the one, or supposes to be the sins of the
oth1r.
S, We are fortunate that our intelligence
and discernment cannot be accurately es-
timated by the Advocate's measure.
The frog in the fable made a vain effort to
measure the size o. the OK by its own
standard, and disastrous results followed
to the frog. We are willing for the same
tribunal to which the Advocate has whim-
peringly appealed to judge Of the correct-
ness Of what we have said in regard to
this matter, and as an aid to the publlc.in
determining what was meant, the follow
ing clipping from last weeks Advocate
may throw additional light on the SUBJ
ject:
~ noticed in the INTELLIaENCER not
long since, a man who wanted to see
man that could, plough an OK in new
ground without swearing. IF he'll come
up here viii show him q man that
ploughed two last year and I am sure he
did not swear and he is not an evangelist
nor fool Baptist"
The above was written by one Of its
correspondents and is published without
by the editor.