The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1901-08-13
AN UNSATISFACTORY REILLY.

Is
TIC route. T. IL A.
AN UAsArISThCTOIY REPLY
Mr. T.. II. Aull, cditor Of The New.
berry Herald ana News, admits that
IL Is the author OF statements nIude in
L'no Herald and News Of July 2jth,
which we have already characterized
;tH LL'ally basclcsS and unf0undcd, and
IS j." falls TO ''rclract tho unscrupu-
lnuS and grOundl"Ss asScrtiOuS," for
| which he now assumes responsibility,
we can only repeat our ucnunciatiOn Of
his course rs reckless and un il4t, en-.
phn5izinE the statement that his aescr.
Ion with respect TO our making any
combination in the campaign last year
| j. 'abSOlutcly and unQuaIilicdly false"
MIR. Auil implies that his statements,
we're based upon "circumstantiul Cvi-
| "cncr," and we presume that the CIR
| "umstanccs arc included in the follow
ing questions: "Will Col. Iloyt deny
that he was in frequent consultation
with the editor OF The State during the
| campaign? And that II" made The
| state Ollicc headquarters whc lie came
| % FOlumba?' This is another cas-,
| uf drawing upon the imagination for
! acts, DccausC there is not the slight
| est foundation for thr Inference so
| :ratuitously drawn. We d.my most
| nmDha,icaily that there waa ever Il
| 'consulta;ion' held, or that there wa.
| any intercourse or communication with
lHn editor Of The State during the
| campaign except in Il social and friend
" way, such KS we have been Nccus.
| "mrd to exercise for years. We did
| not meet the editor Of The State u
| half dozen times from the beginning to
'hc end OF the canlpnign, and not linr
| II written communication ever passed
between us. Does that lOu< like "con-
2in&tion" or "con-ultnton?"
Mr.. Aull says lit is useless to thrcsh
| over old straw" and yet he is guilty Of
Juggling in false charges about the
| campaign OF 1900 using onr namc very
freely, and making assertions for whic!
le has not and cannot produces Il pa,
,iclc OF evidence. IT that is hnnorab b!A
journalism or even decent, ruspcctabln
conduct, then We are utterly ignorant
Is to what is duo from one man to an
,thcr. No wonder he wants to drco
!hc subject, when he is pilloricd be
fore the public as making false and ur-
lu&tiiiablc assertions, without tha
shadow Of foundation for theta.
We do not take pleasure in exposing
AIR Aulri rGc!llcssncs and needless.
ness, rs shown by his utter disregard
Tor the facts in the case, but he has
brought the condemnation upon his
own head by Ncrsisting 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-
| 5tantial evidence" equally nimsy and
| ridiculous. 1t is matter of iuditre!'-
! cncc to rs whether or not Mr.. Nu'l
accepts or rejects this statement t.f
facts, for he has shown ~ dispositiol
| TO con juro his statements from polit,-
| cal bias and prejudice, and not from n
desire to deal fairly and justly with
| ono who at least has never injurcl 1
him.--Grecnvillc Mountainccr.
| We are somewhat surprised at tho
ire displayed 10y onr good friend Of the
| Momtainecr. He grows warm and
seems 30 have rntircly lost hia head
and his temper. IN the first instance
VIC only said: "Col, IIoyt representing
| The prohibitionists and The State new =
| paper representing the high licensc
( people, or pretending to represent high
| licGn#e, combined forces and did cvcrr-
thing they could both fair and unfair
to defeat McSwecncy.' This statement
was made in replying to an editorial
in the Darlington News charging deal
with McSwocncy and tho blind tigers IN
| Charleston aud with no purpose OF
stirring W our friend of the Noun,
| tHlncer. 'fho MonntainCer waXcu war u
over it and dcniol this innocent little
| statement in very vigorous langua !e.
| Not desiring to discuss tho campaign
Of last year we said in reply: "lf the
| Mountainccr insists that the circam
stances mentioned do not justify the
conclusion that there was Il combina.
| ton and insists there was none then
VIC accept the statement AMI let the
subject drop, for it Is not q 1.-Two subject
| now" This wo thought should satisfy
Gny reasonable man and as we desired
| no controversy with the Mountainccr
We aid not care to pursue the subject
further. But the Mountainccr comes
| back with tho above ungcntlcmauly
| article and does not seem satisfied. We
have published all tho M0uutaincor has
said in reply to us, but the editor Of
that paper is worry careful not to pub
lish anything VIC have said, carrying
out the samo unfair methods used last
year in tho campaign and leaving his
readers to judge Of tho merits of tho
| case from his unfair and prcjudicea
statement. II he had published what
we said the readers OF his paper could
then havo judged for themselves
whether or not h" had us pilloried.
We repeat what we said ut tho begin.
ming that the editor Of The State and
Col. Hoyt, candidate for gov crnor in
1900 were together in their opposition
TO McSweeney though claiming to
represent antagonistic views. They
wore both working for tho election of
Col. Hoyt and the defeat of McSweeney
whethor or not there was any written
communication between them or any