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

files OF The States newspapcr and tho
speeches Of Col lloyt. For Col Hoyt to
deny that there was written cOmlnuni.
cation or signed agreement is simply a
qu'bh'c aud does not Justify MIN in the
severe language hG resorts to. We
only heard one OF his campaign speeches
i,nnd that WAS The ono delivered at New,
berry, and We remember that he dis
gustcd many Of his friends here ut tho
siCkly praise he bestowed on Ben Till
| man, and his advice to vote for Till
man. We do know that he and the
State newspaper were fighting together
! for his election and We submit to an
unprecedented public that this is the first
evidence that can be produced that
| there was Il cOmbinaLiOn for his cleo
tion &ad the defeat Of McSwccncy
whether or not there WAS any written
! communication between him and the
! editor Of The State or signed articles
| Of agreement forming the combination.
| IL vas only two years before that the
editor Of Tho state ridicu!cd tho idea
of trying to cntrcnch prohibition in
| the executive chair, when nc thought
the dlspcn5ary could be overthrow by
clccting isprnaary candidate. Last
year be thought it could best be accOnl-
plishcd by combining forces with tho
prohibition candidate and he Joined h y
forces with those Of Col. IIoyt whether
or not there WAS any written communi-
cation or signed agreement and we
appeal to the files Of the State news
paper itself TO prove this assertion and
we arc sure Col. lloyt will not pro.
nOunce this statement falso. We did
not say there: wa5 any written cumUiu.
nication or any written ana signed
agreement, but we did assert there was
Il combination of forces to accomplish
the defeat Of Mr$3wccncy and the files
Of tic State newspaper are offered as
cvidcnc to prove this statement.
as 70 consulting with the editor OF
The State newspaper we made it part OF
our business to keep no with the move.
mCnts Of Col. lIoyt last wear, and every
| time he come toColumbia VIC heard tina.
| he was at the State newspaper Office,
and il was but natural that hc should
20 there and that he shonld DC in con-
sultation there, for his son was a,soci-
ate editor Of this PAPER, and the papcr
| vas his strong advocates We had no
| idea that he wonld deny the statement
made for the fucts were 50 potent that
we could not sec how he could dcnv
| them or would desire TO do so.
We had no idea Of this controversy
| when We replied to the Darlington
News anu arc surprised that Col. liOyt
| should be so indignant ut the stutrm>nt
Of the fact that he and the editor OF
Thc STATE were working together for
hla election and Tor the defeat Of Me-
Sweeney. We rather thought no was
pToU1 OF the company he was keeping
IN tho campaign, though it Is Ii fact
'h"' us lficna ana colaDofcr could not
carry 'hc county OF lichlaud for him.
we oc3 thc pardon OF our readers for
taking up so much space with q matter
that Is plain and simple to cvCryonc
| "ho kept up with tho campaign last
Scar and Is now only a matter Of his
tory. AS for Col. Iloyt We are sur
prised that he should get so angry at
The statement Of d plainitact that every
! body knew and which was stated only
| incidentally in Il matter with which
Col. lloyt had nothing whatever to do,
| but we desire to set ourself right and
to keep the record straight. The
state newspaper pretending to reprn-
sent high license and Col. Iloyt, the
candidate Of prohibition, were fighting
| together and side by side for Col.
| lloyts election and The defeat OF Nc
Sweeney ana to the public, it was q
com mbinatton whether by written com.
munication or siEncd agreement and
the effect anu result were the same.
That Is what we said and that is what
we say now. The files Of the State
newspaper and the speeches Of Col.
iioyt are all the evidence necessary to
| subs tunt late the statement