The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1893-09-20
AS TO THE HON. JNo. T. DUNCAN.

WEUNENUAi, NE1 GuDEii W. 1850.
AS TO THE HON. JNo. T. DUNCAN.
This gentleman is very much incensed
at The Herald and News, but he tells US
we must not think he is mad. That is
nice. We hope he is not mad. That
would be too bad. He does not like it,
however, because we denominated him a
lesser light. Now really that was too
bad, and We should be rebuked for speak
ing thus OF star of such magnitude.
Then evidently he thinks we meant him
when we made some reference to small
calibre politicians. We called no names.
But then these things are mere matters
Of opinion.
The Herald and News will say to the
Hon. Mr.. Duncan that it was not indulg-
ing in prophecy, nor was it intending to
give any warning, nor can we conceive
how what we did say could be construed
as stab in the back. If Mr.. Duncan
does not know it, We viii say for his ben
eft, that we are not in the habit OF stab
bins IN the back, and whenever we have
anything to say We will either publish it
or say it to the man face to face.
The Herald and News does not claim
perfection, nor does it pretend to know it
all Neither does it object to criticism.
All We objected to was misrepresentation.
What lesson Mr. Duncan would have US
learn from our cotemporary, We do not
know, unless it be that we must admit
that we do not know when we are mis-
represented. If this be so, Mr.. Duncan
{ will find US a dull student.
We publish below the editorial Mr..
Duncan undertook to criticise. It stands
for itself. We say now for Mr.. Duncan's
benefit what we said to him at Sigh's for
his benefit. The editor OF this paper told
Mr. Duncan as soo1 as the meeting was
over that we did not obieot to criticism;
that we expected it, but that we did not
like to be misrepresented, and that in his
criticisms of that editorial he had nisrep-
resented us and made statements that
were not true, and that when he under
took to draw conclusions from other peo-
pies statements he should read those
statements so that the people might also
draw conclusions. That. it seemed to US,
was but fair. Mr.. Duncan replied that
he was sorry he had misrepresented US
and would be glad to make the correc-
ton the next day in his speech at st.
Luke's. We told him he need not trou-
bic himself about that. All we asked
was that he let the people know what we
had said and not take his version OF it.
II Mr.. Duncan remembers this converse
tior he must know that we do not claim
a monopoly in the business OF criticism
and that what we had to say Of him we
said face to face.
The reader can readily see from the
quotations which Mr.. Duncan makes ID
his article from the editorial in question
how unfair I'd unjust he was in his criti-
cism Of it. You can take garbled extracts
from any writing and make it say just
the opposite of what was really said.
This was what We objected to; not the
criticism of what we did say.
Now as to the editorial itself We
have read it over once OF twice and have
tried to see if there was really anything
, in it that sympathized with violations OF
law, and have failed to find it. It is
distinctly stated once or twice that all
law should be obeyed, and that this par
ticular law should be obeyed. Because
We do not think it good law would not
make US advise it's violation. We have
on other occasions advised obedience to
it because it was the law.
This statement of Chicco we found. in
the News and Courier. We did not
vouch for its truthfulness, but the pre-
sumption is it was true. We did not
know anything about Chicco, but the
presumption was that he was citizen of
the State and was entitled to the rights
Of citizen. All that we said was that if
his statements were true, such treatment
looked bad. We still think so. It mat
ters not who Chicco is, if he was citizen
of high or low degree, he was entitled to
the same treatment and justice before
the law as any other citizen, even as
much as Mr.. Duncan himself. Mr.. Dun
can has not shown that Chicco's state
ment was false.
Now, to bring this case home to Mr..
Duncan. let US suppose case. Sup
pose, Mr.. Duncan, that you were charged
with violation of the law, and that your
wife was sick and in the condition Chicco
says his was, and seventeen armed con-
stables-constables, remember-were to
come to your house to make a search,
and demand admission to your wiie's
bed room, where she was in bed sick, and
threaten if they were not given admission
that they would break the door down
and drag your wife to the guard house
N the bargain, when you knew that such
demonstration would possibly endanger
her life, what would you do, Nj. Duncan?
If you are a man, you would feel like
getting your gun. Now this is Chicco's
statement. We do not know whether or
not it is true. # not, then our remarks
on it amount 70 nothing. We do happen
to know, however, that the constables did
threaten to break down the door and
they did go through his bed room, and
that his wife was sick, for one of the con-
stables told us so. Their excuse was
that it was the only way to get to the
whiskey.
Won caa-, IN olsooI - H. ,,,o -