The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1901-07-10
.sMR. GONZALES DID NOT WRITE ONE
WORD OF THAT ARTICLE"

WORD OF THAT ARTICLE"
There are few newspaper edi-
tors who obey the injunction. to
turn the other cheek, when they
are smitten, and the editor of
this newspaper is no exception.
We do not enjoy saying harsh
things, because We have a tender
regard for the feelings, of others,
and if harsh things are to be
said, we prefer that those should
say them, who, on Sundays, III
robes OF sanctity profess to pro
pound the sweet and noble doc
trine of love, and on week days,
from a newspaper, and, with the
fendish glee Of devil incarnate
promulgate under cover Of an
others name, doctrines to engen-
der strife, bitterness and hate.
There are times when we are
forced to speak out, and strike
back, because circumstances
bring on conditions which must
be met. When assailed locally,
we are content ito give the brute
rope, that he might bay freely;
his haying will be his own un-
doing" But when we are as
sailed abroad we hit back, to an
extent as in our Judgment the
conditions warrant.
In last Fridays State, a fellow
doing the editorial work. grinds
out a criticism of an editorial
which appeared in The TINES
in it's issue of July 3rd. That
fellow refers to US as lone of a
parasitic class of editors" which
he does mot like to handle, even
with tongs." He also, with an
air of asinine wisdom, discovers
an error in our grammar: we
used the word was" when we
should have used the word
':were, ''and finding nothing else
to hurl, he compares US to an
agile flea.
This thing, who was permitted
to fill up space in the editorial
columns of The State of 9Th,
inst, whines, that in our reply to
his editorial of June 29th, we
s:intended to be insulting by in
sinuation,'' in the following sen
tence "Gonzales has lived in
Columbia a long time, let him
show where his townsmen have
reposed confidence in him, either
politically or financially. without
regretting it." We have yet to
learn that The State has secured
the sole privilege of being ''in-
sulting." When it referred to Us
as being economical in the use of
the truth" without provocation,
we resented such a dastardly as
sertion by challenging a com
parison between the editor of
The State and ourself, and for
him to cite an instance where we
have ever written a falsehOod.
There is no law which CON-
pels man to criminate himself,
nor did we expect that the editor
of The State would reproduce a
confession of treachery which
may be found in his files along in
January, 1895, nor did we look for
him to have anything to say
about his paper when it was in
struggling stage, but how does
he propose to accept our chal-
lenge ''to cite an instance when
we have ever written a false
hood?" This is what he offers
as his proof, referring to US, he
says. He charges that Mr.. n.
G.. Gonzales wrote the article in
The State Of June 20, X =. AS
matter of fact, Mr.. Gonzales
did not write one line of that ar
ticle."
The editorial to which we took
exceptions occupied the leading
space Of the editorial columns in
The State, and at the head of the
editorial page of that newspaper
stands the name IN. G. Coma
les, Editor" The offending arti-
'cle was unsigned, and therefore
we could recognize no one else as
the editorial writer. But grant
ing that Mr.. Gonzales did not do
the writing, where in the name
of sense is the falsehood? This
newspaper has patronage who
scorn falsehood, and we have
been writing its editorials many
years, the increasing patronage
is a proof of confidence in the
integrity of the editor, and when
great daily newspaper SO ably
edited as is The State, charges
Us with falsehood we resent it,
and we had the best of reasons to
believe the charge was made by
the editor Of that paper, Mr.. n.
G. Gonzales. All the circum-
stances gave Us the right to as
sumo that the filth appearing in
The State Of June 29th, was dug