The Lexington dispatch. [volume] (Lexington, South Carolina) 1870-1917, 1898-03-02
We RESPECTFULLY Decline.

The Herald and News Of Newberry
became exceedingly wrought up and
waxed warm over the defeat OF the
Senate bill TO regulate the charge for
legal advertising, which, by the-way,
was pet scheme OF the President
OF the State Press Association, and he
p 'oceeds Immediately to unco1k the
Walls of his wrath and pours their
sitrol upon Representative Ehrd III
particular and those members who
opposed the bill III general.
Our two Abbeyille contemporaries
joins the Herald in its walfare and
one of them opens it's batteries by
firing the following shot:
"The printing bill prepared by the
Press Association was defeated by
the Legislature at its recent session.
The fight was made on it by Mr..
E6rd of Lexington, the newspapers
of the State, and especially OF Lex
ington, have q clear duty before them
and it is to defeat in the next cam
paign every man who voted against
the bill.
"dr. E6rd objected to the bin on
account of the source from whence
it came and if the Lexington editors
don't pay him out for this they are not
worth cent" ."-Abbeville Medium.
This shot evidently was fired at
random with no thought of it taking
effect. Speaking only for ourself,
our Abbeville contemporary must
pardon Us if we fail to view the mat
ter through it's spectacles. In the
first place for long number Of years
The advertising charges of the Dis
patch were fixed at Is cents for the
first insertion and so cents for each
subsequent insertion, and this was
when the law allowed 81 per square
for the first and 50 cents for the
second insertion and at a time, too,
when we had no opposition, therefore,
the cut to one cent per word effects
us but little, as the following will
show: On an average seventy-six
words makes square which. under,
the old rates the price was 81,
but which We charge only Is cents.
The present legal rate, one cent
word, makes IS cents making US a
cent cheaper than the present legal
rate. Hence, to be consistent, we
cannot eight Mr.. Eird for doing
something which We have for years
been virtually doing. II Mr.. E6rd,
and the other members who opposed
The bill were conscientious in their
opposition they should be commended
rather than condemned for having
the temerity to stand for their con-
victions in the face of such terrible
opposition as the State press.
But if Mr.. Efrd fought the bill
solely on the ground from whence
it came" as our contemporary says
he did, then he allowed his personal
preiudices to warp his judgment and
made him lose sight of the merits of
the bill, and for this be is deserving Of
censure. The publishers of the State
were directly interested in the pas
sage of the bill: it was for their ben
eft that the bill was drawn and who
could more properly draw it than a
committee of the Press Association?
In the recent past the farmers Of
this and other States met in conven
tions to formulate plans to raise the
price of cotton. The press of the
State, saw the necessity of a united
and concerted action on the part of
the cotton growers to accomplish the
purposes of the call. 1t did not
oppose the source from whence the
call came but knowing that the far
mers needed the relief demanded
and impressed with the business Of
their cause, the press came to their
support and rendered valuable ser
vice in their behalf Knowing Mr..
Efrd as we do we are inclined to the
belief that he opposed the bill on
grounds other than "tbe source from
whence it came" and until we hear
from him We will withhold comments
for the present.
The great activity that has been
~o~o,,o;l;no e;noo tbo 1oef,,ofioo ,f