The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1900-09-19
FOR SUPT. EDUCATION.
Vote for one.)
G.. l. JOHNSON.
CHAS. T.. BROOKS.
FOR CORONER.
Vote for one.)
w. d. WATTS.

1t will be noted that under "coro-
ner" only one name was printed. In
another part OF the paper, announce
ment cards OF the candidates in the
above list were printed.
Mr.. Watts was elected coroner by
three votes. A change Of two votes
would have changed the result 1t is
claimed that the publication above re-
printed was unfair to Mr.. Ferguson
and perhaps caused his defeat.
OF course it's the business of the
County News how the County News is
run, not ours, but at the same time the
matter is one of general newspaper
policy and "cthics", SO we propose to
comment upon it,
Advertising Is one thing and news
Is another. 1t was right and proper
that the announcement cards of those
who had paid for them should appear
in the advertising columns, as they
did. The ticket we have reprinted
appeared in the editorial and news
columns. 1T purported to be printed
tor 1.-The convenience of readers. ''There
was nothing to Indicate that it was an
advertisement or that it was paid for.
We suppose it was not paid for. The
qualification "who have their an
nouncement in The News" may have
been intended as method of calling
attention to the advertisement cards.
But, printed among editorials and
news matter without advertisement
sign and copying closely the form Of
the official ballot its tendency was to
mislead, to convey wrong impression
In some cases it did mislead, it did CON
vey wrong impression.
"A well regulated newspaper when
IL prints news, is expected to print it
In full and not to suppress part. The
qualifying clause 'who have their an.
nouncements in The News" when it is
considered that this ticket vas placed
where newspapers usually print party
tickets for public guidance and that
with the official ballot with instructions
"vote for one" fails to save the publi-
cation from its tendency to be mis-
leading We have heard of cases In
which 1T did mislead. People may, in
a lew instances, have imagined that
Mr.. Ferguson had withdrawn The
publication caused confusion in the
minds OF some and probably the loss OF
two Tbtts~SA MIR. Ferguson. Defeat
may reasonably be attributed by Mr.
Ferguson to THIS cause-- -
In two other Pfaces, the County
News in the same issue printed cards
for Mr.. Ferguson asking for support in
the second primary. These, we are
informed, were advertisements and
paid for: which make it the stranger
=
been omitted in the printed list.
Moreover, it should be no ed that the
County News did not publish the re-
suit OF the first primary as declared
by the county executive committee,
and the printed list was, so far as we
can see, the only intimation it gave to
its readers as to would run in the sec
opd primary, except through Major
Ferguson's paid advertisements =
Finally, we submit that if it published
any news about the election at all. it
should have published it so that the
public could not possibly have been
misled and In its news columns should
not have suppressed part of the cleo
tion news to the injury of one of the
candidates.
AS between the two candidates THE
ADVERTISER had no choice, one being
our cld-time friend and the other a
near kinsman.
We distinctly do not charge The
County News with Intentional unfair
ness, but in this close contest, the
effect OF its printing partial ticket in
the way that it did was probably to de-
Feat candidate. If it sought that, II
succeeded.
Major Ferguson simply did not feel
able to put his announcement in all
three papers, so nc gave his job work
to the County News.
iht loilOWlHR is Wnat The County
News said about the matter last week:
Last weeks Issue of The News con-
taincd list OF the candidates WHO
HAD THEIR ANNOUNCEMENTS IN
THE NEWS. Mr.. NJ. II. Ferguson's
name was omitted, because he did not
see fit to put his announcement with us.
Some OF his friends were telling t.
abroad that we favored Mr.. Watts and
left Mr.. Ferguson out on that account.
Mr.. ferguson has no one to blame but
himself. He was asked once in writ
Ing and once in person to put his an.
nouncement with us, but he preferred
to patronize other papers. He seemed
to think that because he gave us a few
dollars worth OF job work we should
nave put his announcement In our col
umn. But in justice to the candidates
VINO paid us, and as he Is not an OBJ
lect OF charity, we could not publish
MS cara free. 1t is as unreasonable OF
MIN TO expect us to publish his an
nounce .nent free as 1t would be for
DAVIS, Roper Co., or s. M. & f.. II.
wilkes TO expect us to advertise them
free. Our living Is made by the adver-
tisemenis We get. IL all were as nm
reasonably as this we could not pub
lish our sheet.
AS to our siding with any one candi-
date In this campaign 1t is a mistake.
While we were publishing the daily.
we treated every one fairly, giving az
s,sGood write up to those who did not ad-
S5[ <sEaH as to. those who did.
~ S s ss shown-every
'''' S !, 8 s ''l II S part!-