The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1901-08-13
An UNSATISFhCTOI KEpLY

thc route. +, IL A.
AN USSATISThCTOKY kEPLY.
MIR. +. II. Aul, editor of The New.
berry Herald ana News, admits that
IL is the author OF statements made in
Ino Herald and News of July 25th,
which we have already characterized
az totally basclcSs and untOundcd, and
Is he fails 10 "rCtraCt !hc unsCrupu-
lruS and ErOundlcSS aSScrtiOnS,n for
which he now assumes responsibilities
we can only repeat our dcuunciati0n OF
his course as reckless and unjust, en-.
pha5izing the statement that his asscr
;'On with respect TO our making any
combination in the campaign last year
= absolutely and unuualiiicdly false"
Mr.. Auil ,mplics that his statements
"crc based upon "cirCumstaNtial cvi-
icnce,' and we presume that the CIR.
"umstanccs arc included in the follow
jng questions: "Will Col. IIoyt deny
hat he was in frequent consultation
with the editor OF The State during the
campaign? And that he made The
state Office headquarters whc he came
20 Eolumbia?" This is another cas-,
If drawing upon the imHEinution for
acts, because there is not the slight
est foundation for the Inference so
:ratuitonsly drawn. We dmy most
:mpha,icaily that thcr. was ever Il
'rononta;ion' held, or that there wa,
any Intercourse or communicate ion witt,
IL" editor Of The State during the
campaign except in q social and friend
y way, such Hs we have been nccus.
"ncd TO exercise for years. We diG
not meet the editor of The State ~
na!f dozen times from the BEGINNING to
;hc end OF the canIpaiGn, and not q line
bi written communication ever passed
between us. Does that lonl like "com-
oinAtion' or "consultation?"
Mr.. Aull says 'it is useless to thrcsh
| over old straw" and yet he is guilty Of
| Juggling in false charges about tn"
campaign OF 1900, using our numc very
freely, and making assertions for whic:!
lie has not and cannot produce Il pal =
.iclc OF evidence. IT that is hOnUrab 81,
journalism or even decent, ruspcctabln
| conduct, then we are utterly ignorant
Is to what is due from one man to an
other. No wonder he wants to drCo
j The subject, when he is pilloricd be-
fore the public rs making false and uN-
iuSti'iablc assertions, without the
| shadow OF foundation for thcn.
We do not take pleasure in exposing
Mr.. Aulla rochlcssncss and hccdlcs.-
ness, rs shown by his utter disregard
Tor the facts in the case, but he has
brought the condemnation upon his
| own head by rcrsisting in making
charges which he ought to have known
were untrue, aud when his attention
| was plainly directed to their falsity he
seeks to cover his retreat by "circum-
3tantial evidence" equally nimsy and
ridiculous. 1t is u matter Of indiifey-
cncc to us whether or not Mr.. Nu'l
| accepts or rejects this statement t.f
facts, for he has shown Il disposition
to conjuro his statements from polit,-
cal bias and prejudice, and not from n
desire to deal fairly and Justly with
one who at least has never injured
him.--Greenvillc Mountainccr.
Wc arc somewhat surprised at tho
ire displayed by our good friend of the
MountAinecr. He grows warm and
seems TO have entirely lost hia head
and his temper. In the tirst instance
we only said: "Col, EIoyt representing
the prohibitionists and The State new 3
paper representing the high license
people, or pretending to represent high
liccu@r, combined forces and did cvcrr-
thing they could both fair and unfair
to defeat McSwcency. This statement
was made in replying to an editorial
in the Darlington News charging deal
with Nj McSwcCrcy and tho blind tigers ia
charleston aud with no purpose OF
stirring up our friend Of the Noun
| t"incer. The Mountainccr waxcd war;
! over it and denied this innocent little
statement in very vigorous language.
Not desiring to discuss tho campaign
| Of last year we said in reply: "If the
Monntanccr insists that the -circam,
stances mentioned do rot justify the
| conclusion that there was u combina.
tion and insists there was none then
VIC accept the sta!cncnt AMI let the
subject drop, for it Is not live subject
now This wc thought should satisfy
any reasonable man and rs we desired
no controversy with the MountaiDccr
we aid not care to pursue tho subject
further. But the Mountainccr comes
back with tho above ungentlcmauly
article and does not seem satisfied. We
have published all tho Mountancer has
said in reply to MS, but the editor Of
that paper Is worry careful not to pub
lish anything we have said, carrying
out the Same unfair methods used last
year in the campaign and leaving bis
readers to judge Of tho merits of tho
case from his unfair and prc)udced
statement. If he had published what
we said the readers Of his paper could
then havo judged for themselves
whether or not ho had us pilloried.
We repeat what we said at tho beain.
ming that tho editor Of The State and
Col. Hoyt, candidate for gov yernor in
1000 were together in their opposition
to McSweeney though claiming to
represent antagonistic views. They
wore both working for the election OF
Col. Hoyt and the defeat Of McSweeney
whether or not there was any written
communication between them or any