The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1892-05-04
FROM MR.. MoGOW AN.
More Light Oh the County Levy.-.hf
Mr.. DuPre Gets Into the Fight the
PubIic Will Knew IL all.

Editor Press and Banner:
Col. Robertson's "reioinder" needs lit lie re-
ply. There Is absolutely nothing new IN IT,
but only Il second and poorer edition ol nlS
first letter. He admits however. all that ]
have been contending for, VIZ: That me
County commissioners asked him for mills.
That is my whole case. The only poSslnle
way of escape for the Colonel now Is TO make
another of those honest confessions said to be
good for the SOUL and admit that he made
''huge" mistake.
The Colonel seems to have lost his temper.
When man gets mad 1t Is q never 1al ing IN
dcation that his cause IS weak and that he
feels he has lost his case.
SO, Mr. Editor, as far US Col. Robertson is
concerned. by his own admission, this arsu-
ment is ended
AS to Mr. DuPre's letter, while not MS full ms
think 1t should have been, 1T also admits IN
substance all that ! have asserted. MIR.
DuPre admits that he did have conversn-
ton with me on this subject. He admits
that he did have n correspondence" with Col.
Robertson on the same subject. Our only diff
ference Is. that he says ] IVA was "mlstaken ,ia In
connection. 1t was Boyd's Mill bridge, Bur
detrs (now PRICE Mill bridge and Milford's
Mill bridge"
This makes my case all the stronger In.
stead OF two, Col. Robertson was Informed
that the County Commissioners expected TO
build three bridges. 1t does not matter If
none Of these bridges were built. Atthe Lime
Of the levy 1t was thought they Wonid oe
and Col. Robertson was in reference to them,
and l still say the levy demanded should
have been granted.
The fact that remembered Mr.. OuPre's
speaking to me OF two bridges instead of
three, cannot effect the real issue, viz: That
Col. Robertson had official information, and
to make such use OF 1t is mere quibble
1t is perfectly immaterlal what bridges ne
gist Is, did Mr.. DuPre inform Col: Robertson
That mills would be necessary. The records
show 1t; Col. Robertson admits 1t; Mr. DuPre
does not deny IT..
If Mr. DuPre's letter was meant to strength
en- Col. Robertson's position, II has failed. On
the contrary IT helps me. | cannot conceive
why IL was written unless 1t was meant sim
ply to satisfy, or rather to pacify. the irate
Colonel (and In this connection would like
TO inquire If II reached the Press and Banner
direct from Fort Hill, or did 1t travel South
via Col. Robertson y
Mr.. DuPre says again: ~ have not copy
of Col. kobertson's article in your issue OF
last week, but when reading 1t said IL was
correct"
article before him when he wrote. If he had,
he would not have stated that said article
was substantially correct" 1 don't know
what Interpretation Mr.. DuPre gives TO The
term "substially" but he must have consid-
cred 1t OF very elastic meaning to have used
IL in the connection which he did.
If Col. Robertson's was substantially cor
rect" then MIR. DuPre, as County Commits.
8 mills was sufficient, why ask for four. One
or the other is bound to be mistaken. 1t is a
clear case OF pay your money and take your
choice"
l have already demonstrated however, that
Mr.. DuPre was right and Col. Robertson
wrong. See my last article, where showed
that az mills even, there would be small
Therefore. Col. Robertson's article was not
correct" II was plausible, but
both Col. Robertson and Mr.. DuPre know,
that while the estimates In figures footed up
less than mills, the estimates In mills as eX-
planned in said correspondent called for
mills.
As there seems TO be some hard to con vince,
If Mr.. DuPre will publish copies OF said let
ters and will refer me To the minutes Of the
meetings of the Board OF County Commits
sioners in the fall of 1880, (Which cannot be
found in the ofilce) so that can publish ex-
tracts from them, Will be perfectly satisfied:
| desire nothing but the facts. but l want all
the facts explaining the transaction as a
whole, and not isolated statements which
make a plausible, but not substantial"
Be it remembered too. that of the 3 mills
allowed Il OF one mill was for "past Indebted
ness" therefore, the levy, as allowed for all
county purposes, was only "a mills. which is
q ''subStantial' abSurdity.
Mr.. DuPre was right In asking for mills.
and the Colonel was wrong In allowing only 3
mills.
should like very much to see Clemson College
and the old historic surroundings them. as
we'll as to pay him visit, but as his publish
ed letter saves me the necessity OF gong to
settle this controversy, will defer my trip to
some future day.
Col. Robertson says he is tired of this con-
troversy. | am not surprised. While 1t Is |
TO assert the same facts SO OF. |
ten, so long as the Colonel desires light will
endeavor to enlighten him.
[ Will leave off where first began, viz
with those four big facts which are not only |
demonstrated but are now admitted.
|. County Commissioners asked officially
for mills.
9. That 4 mills were absolutely necessary.
3. Delegation allowed only mills.
4. County deep in debt.
leave u thinking public to draw their own |
Respectfully,
w. c. MCGOWAN.