Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1900-09-05

oates 1Or the mousse was fought dii oFel
this county on account of his religious
and political opinions; that rumors
concerning his candidacy were circu-
lated against him in order to prejudice
the voters, and that the rumors had
their effect. THE ENQUIRER must also
know that at that candidates home
box, local issues having nothing to do
with the dispensary or prohibition eth
ier, or politics or religion, were sprung
against him the night before the elec-
tion, and that on that account he lost
more than a hundred votes at home,
thus defeating his candidacy. The
ENQUIRER knows, too, that sectional In
terests entered somewhat into the
contest, and that men were considered
more than measures. Mr.. de Loachs
fine vote is more a tribute to his per-
sonal worth as a man than to his ad-
vocacy of the dispensary, and THE
ENQUIRER ought to be fair enough to
recognize this as fact.
If the foregoing are facts, and THE
ENQUIRER knows they are, our contem'
porary Is not justified in making the
publication above quoted. THE EN-
oUIRER knows that the successful legis-
lative candidate who received next to
the highest vote, was in the Legislature
when the dispensary law was put upon
the state, and he was then a warm ad'
vocate Of the law and is still giving
the measure his jealous support.
THE ENQUIRER ought to be fair In
analyzing the result Of the primary
and we are sure the public will agree
with us in declaring that its publica'
ton above, Is not so. It knows some
of the reasons why the editor Of this
paper was defeated, and 1t ought moi
| to say it was because Of his adVocac!
Of the dispensary, when three Other
dispensary candidates were elected
Rock Hill Herald.
Mr.. de Loach was not an advocate o1
the dispensary, as indicated In The
Herald's second paragraph. He was al
outspoken prohibitionist and begged
those who did not endorse his views
to vote against him on the ground thai
he would rather have their respect
than their votes.
1t is not our intention to enter int
quarrel with The Herald; but In JUS
tice to ourselves we do not care to print
the foregoing without comment. AS
matter of fact the paragraph criticised
was written before the votes were
counted, in anticipation Of the election
of Mr.. de Loach and the defeat Of three
dispensary candidates. At that time
we were still hoping and believing thai
Mr.. Hull would be elected, so our com
ment ought not to be taken as having
the slightest personal application. W.
have no reason, however, to change
the view we entertained when the par
agraph was written.
| We did not undertake to say that Mr.
de Loach was elected on the prohibi
ton issue alone. The lines that The
Herald has omitted from our paragraph
as published, indicate very clearly that
we do not believe that the people o.
York county will soon again elect any
man simply because he claims to holt
certain views. We are free to admi
that Mr.. de Loach's personal worth wal
quite a consideration. 1t comes up te
all requirements; but we do not con-
slider it one whit greater than that o.
Mr.. Hull, and, furthermore, we will say
that while he may have received, ant
no doubt did receive, many dispensar!
votes we are very sure that he receiv
ed several hundred more prohibition
votes than he would have received hat
he announced himself for the dispen
sary. AS a matter of fact Mr.. de Loacl
was the only candidate in the race
who announced his position on the II
uuor question with sufficient clearnes
to indicate to the people that he him
self knew exactly where he stood. Al
the others tried to Skinny on boil
sides," by declaring their belief in tenn
perance. Not one Of them had th'
hardihood to uphold liquor drinking.
We are sorry to have The Herald &C
cuse us of false representation in thi
matter. We are sure that there is m
doubt as to where THE ENQUIRER
stands on the question of prohibition
blind tigers or dispensaries. We try t.
consider the whole matter as fairly AM
impartially as we can, and we do no
think that our honest views, honestl!
Expressed, ought to lay us liable, t.
such charges as The Herald has made
We disagree with The Herald. We be
lieve The Herald is wrong; but we ar
not willing to say that The Herald be
lieves itself wrong.