Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1899-11-01

AS regards the mOSC OF Wndt he 1Ohh'
VILE ENQUIRER has to say, we have no
reply to make. We note with pleasure its
loftiness of tone in attributing some vague
impossibilities to "reliable, self-respecting
newspapers" for we remember that in no
very distant past we had occasion to read
some pungent lessons to THE ENQUIRER
on subjects having decided bearing on
reliability and self-respect, and we are
glad to see that our labor was not altogeth-
er in vain.
But THE ENQUIRER is not justifiable in
distorting what we said into an attack upon
Prof. johnson. We were particular NOT
to say that he was persuading pupils to
violate their contracts with other colleges.
What we did say was, pupils are being
persuaded" and we did not say by whom.
We are abundantly able to make good
this assertion in the face of the whole
world. When it it is remembered that
Winthrop has a number of officers and
attaches, and hosts Of political friends and
servants, that assertion cannot, except by
the most violent and malicious distortion,
he construed into a personal attack upon
Prof. Johnson.
The ENQUIRER calls for facts, names
and dates to justify what it is pleased to
consider one insignificant transaction
'magnifed into a charge of wholesale
persuasion of pupils to violate their con-
tracts" We have already given one fact,
and if they must come, we can give others
we can also give dates approximately-ac-
cnrately if necessary-names we Will not
give at this time because we have too high
regard for the feelings of high-toned,
sensitive young ladies to drag their names
before the public in order to crafty the
morbid curiosity of THE YoRKvILLE
ENQUIRER or anybody else. We happen
to know that as many as three young
ladies made contracts with Limestone for
the session and cancelled them for the pur-
pose of going to Winthrop. One of these
contracts was carried so far that the father
had sent a check covering the ex-
penses Of half the session, and had written
that his daughter had left home for Lime
stone; but would stop dayor two to visit
friends at Winthrop. The visit ended,
she went to Limestone and annulled her
contract and returned to Winthrop. We
have it from good authority that while she
was on her visit to Winthrop, place in
the dormitory was promised her if she
would enter Winthrop instead Of Lime
stone. We have no right to assert that
any other inducements were offered, but
reserve the right to infer what we please.
This young lady had no scholarship in
Winthrop, and the dormitories are sup
posed to have all been taken in June, or
before the 200 pupils were refused admis-
sion for lack of dormitory room-eXcept
such as were reserved for those who might
win scholarships. This all took place
after the opening of the session. A few
days later another young lady annulled
her engagement at Limestone and went
to Winthrop. We do not know any of the
particulars of this case except that both
had engaged rooms at Limestone early in
the fall, and the rooms had been reserved
for them.
Had we not been absolutely sure OF
our ground, we would, of course, not
have been so severe on The Ledger.
We would have assumed that possibly
it was mistaken rather than malig-
nant but if abundant evidence of our
position is not to be found above, then
Alfred Jingle was certainly free from
the guile of the hypocrite.
ave were particular" explains The
Ledger, "NoT to say that Professor
Johnson was persuading pupils to vio-
late their contracts with other col.
leges." Yes, that fact is very clear ;
but it seems to us that The Ledger
should have been as particular to say
that Professor Johnson WAS NOT COM
hitting this offence. Then there
would have been no ground for any
alleged misunderstanding.
And The Ledger has "too high re-
gard for the feelings of high toned, sen.
sitive young ladies" who it alleges are
guilty of preach of promise ITO drag
their names before the public" That
is certainly good. Jingle could not
have done better. Unable to secure
himself behind real skirts, even his
artful mind would have hardly decern-
ed the equal security of imaginary
ones.
We note the new cases of bad faith
which The Ledger charges against
these anonymous young ladies; but in
this instance no completely on the part
of any of Winthrop's management is
alleged. If the cases cited, however,
are really based on fact, it is probable
that this second bubble may be pune
tured as easily as was the first. For
instance, suppose a young lady who