The Lexington dispatch. [volume] (Lexington, South Carolina) 1870-1917, 1896-06-17
COL. KNoLTs ANSWERED.

Col. D. J. Knots publishes pre-
tended reply to our criticisms OF,
not his position, but the Republican
party in reference to its Southern
policy. Like all writer's who cannot
meet argument with argument, he
resorts to assertions and to q weakan
foolish attempt at ridicule with
startling rapidity that is both anus
ing and'clownish.
This paper has never personally
abused Co.. Knots. We fully recog-
nized his right to exercise his
privilege of indepedent political
action as his judgment dictated
without having his motives impugn
and we acted accordingly. But
when he so severely arraigned the
Democratic patty on charges which
were erroneous, that we took him to
task and questioned their correct
ness. That We have succeeded in our
effort to show the fallacy of his charges
is clearly shown in the temper
of his reply, in his illogical reason
ings and in the baseless assertions
he makes. We are fully aware that
personal abuse of latter day converts
to Republicanism is generally craved
as the best political capital to be
had to arouse the sympathies of their
Northern allies as stepping stone
to the q. S. District Attorneyship
or some other fat office for instance,
hence we have been very guarded.
So much for impugning motives.
Had we desired to do so, however,
Col Knott's political record certainly
offers an inviting and fruitful field in
which there are more than reasonable
grounds to conclude that his recent
tumble was caused not only from
patriotic motives, to say the least OF
it. Let US see. For years he has
been a prominent and CONSPICUOUS
light in the Democratic partS, taking
leading and active part in county
politics, presiding over conventions
and asking the suffrage of his fellow
Democrats. Yet during all this time
not a word fell from his lips against
the principles of the party, as far as
we have been able to ascertain, Ger
tainly no line was penned by him.
On the other hand. he defended them
with ability, zeal and enthusiasm.
In 1880 he was candidate for Sen
ator, having two strong opponents
Mai. H. A. Meetze and DR.. G.. Mul-
ler1 and made very creditable run,
having received 412 votes, but was
defeated. Do our citizens remember
one word that he uttered against the
principles of Democracy? In 1892
he again appeared in the political
arena. He entered the race for the
House as a Tillmanite, was voted for
as such and elected as one. He
then found no fault with Democratic
principles. In the campaign OF '94
he was candidate for reelection
but declining to express himself as
between Tillman and Butler, many
of his warmest friends withdrew
their support, and at Irmo
he virtually gave up the race,
although the public annouce-
ment of his withdrawal was
made only a few days before the
primary, declaring himself an lnde-
pendent candidate in the hands OF
the Conservatives and was de'eated
at the general election. Was it not
then that he first began to find that
the principles of Democracy were
wrong? He could not go back to
the Reformers and ask for Office; the
Conservatives were not strong
enough to give him one and his only
chance lay with the Republicans,
whose prospects for electing their
national ticket was then bright. From
the above we could have logically
reasoned that the desire for Office
was the motive for embracing the
Republican doctrines, but we pre-
ferred to throw the cloak of charity
around him. gave him the benefit Of
the doubt and did not impugn his
motives.
As between the principles OF De-
mocracJ and Republicanism we are
intensely partizan. But the publ
cation of his articles is evidence that
we take no unfair advantage of an
opponent and give to all the right to
express their views on public questions
no matter how those views may con-
Aict with ours. AS to the ''paucity of
our materials and the helplessness Of
our position" it being mere belief
for which he does not and cannot
or;ua an intellirent reason. he can