The Union times. [volume] (Union, S.C.) 1894-1918, 1897-03-26
UNION, S. c., MARCH 2G, 1897.
THE NEWS AND COURIER OFFENDED,


This editorial in the Charleston News
and Courier OF Natctr- 18th and our
reply:
"In our opinion" says TIE UNION
TINES, ''politicS i'll Charleston are very
rotten. and have been fer years. and we
believe that Governor El.crhc thinks the
same thing. Some papers hmt very
strongly that some of the members oi
the Charleston city council are Ill the
blind tiger business, and it looks very
much that way.
We do not think that politics i'll
Charleston is more rotten THAN poI!ticS
in any other part of the state. anu W"
doubt that our contemporary las amy
evidence that would sustain lis lndIci-
me,,t before Il Union county jury: hut
we sln not discuss The question at TINS
time. The point that we wish I" direct
attention to now is the statement oi our
contemporary that lit looks very much
as if ''some of the members ui Charles
toms city council are in the bind tiger
b,rsiness.n ~ WHY does it ''lOok very
much that way?' Who are these in"n-
bers of city council? Indefinite ANA seat
tering charges of this nature are CONT
mon, but are they true hat n'li-
bers of city council are engaged III the
blind tiger business? What IA" lhrir
names? Are they among tiir n'ln'rE "i
those who signed tie AGREEMENT pr"l'n eel
Ly Governor Ellcrhe ionklhg To t!lr "t'-
fer enforcement of the diSpcMStrN law III
this town. whlch piir cuh''lul"iN a'-
proves. or are they nnunG th"S" Win"
have declined tn sign this agreement: II"
city council is divided on the quc7;nn %
a I.. l,,A- 4
MAYOR and sixteen aldermen have agreed
to the terms proposed 10y Governor hii"l-
Ike. and on the other side -"Frn N'drr-
nsetl have refused to accrde To IL" ',"N~
ernor's demand-On which Sldc are IA"
members of city comcl who are in t.c
blind tiger business to lp. !nullu:
Our contemporary says t'r,t ''W,"rr
public opinion is saYrrSC t0a law ii - nest
10 mposSible to eutnrcc it. ~ Ncash
our contemporary in all 1m'n">S whether
it il not true that the public "ilnun ni
this place is not mon" likely 10 l." Mn'h !
the MAYOR and sixteen OF the H.dc!hhcn /,
than with the seven ulJrciuS Ntn VIII !
pOt consent to tie cpnuiliUu> !ll!ti ny |
Governor Elle,hc? We DO not thi,ii, t'nt I.
the Governor ShuniI have prescribed "ii\ :
conditions, and we dG not thnk. as Il /,
matter of principle. tha, The cltN au- T,
tlDritieS should hay" consented 10 III" !
conditions imposed: bat III" Tact r"inaiiiS ,
that the III: yOr AMI CllN council -" rs !
thoroughly prepared to carry on; ne
agreement with Governor E'.|Ih" "H II ,
every member of the council lM'l "iGi"i !
it. Tie minority TOllId hc loWriirNN "a ,
prevent the enactment nt any new lhNl!i- ,
cipal legislation in aid nt thr enforcement !
of the law ur 10 block the nih!oi ~ iiIS
efforts To execute the law of tine Stat"
and the ordinances Ot the Ci,N. Ii tlc
council were equally divided upon the
question. there might hr some reason ton
s,lspecting the inability OF the mayor
who is really. after ,tii, charged with the
of the law. but MEcH Ii"
is backed by two-thndS OF tic ro'ucii
there can be 10 question oi llS ahiI!H Ia
carry ont the pledges which l@Nc been
made. Beside. city council. col!>lI-
stuffed us it is. has never ,",' one mo-
ment since its Induction into Office 'Eti
the least chance t. prove It's good lnlrii-
lions by deeds. Ii il had been trI"i aIrd 4.
had failed To perform It's duty. II Wo'!d
be without excuse or defence. l'u, 1t
has IrsI no chance amt II SIu,jih not ic
condenn9h for taiEE" ln %u VIA, ,' was
not permitted To attempt lpd".
But what lnvlNhcrS of citN council ar
Sin the blind tiger M:Sinr~>:' Have
they sh.ucd the Governor -r"rcclnrni "r
have they refused To sign Il. .;rc they
with the Governor. nr against Tire rur
crnor? Are ilry for thulr't"n. a.
against Charleston? Are thrN raril>Wu>
of Mr. J. Enorc Martin and thcrci"rr :
for the metropolitan lnil@' system i"-
cause the metropolitan Uclicr s;Hi"m Is
y n = . .T.f|.