The Batesburg advocate. [volume] (Batesburg, S.C.) 1901-1911, 1904-08-25
CAIHOUN'S REPLY
TO MIR. MAYFIEl>D

it was introduced at his suggestion. Be-
yond all doubt. Mr.. Mayfield introduced
the bill and engineered it's passage
through the legislature In addition 10
the denial OF Mr.. Mayheld that he pre-
pared the bill, ne stated on the stump
that he had not even read 1t when he
introduced It. 1T was fathered by i'm
In its passage ana was known as the
Mayield bill yet on the stump he
mad the dcnials as given.
MIR Williams stated on the stump
that as Mr.. Mayield denied a bill that
ne had successfully carried through
anu denied al responsibility In connec-
ton with it that he could only con-
cIude under the circumstances, that II
was a railroad measure prepared by a
railroad attorney anu pushed through
by MIR. Mayicld as "a representative OF
the railroads. esp cially as it was for
The sole benefit of the railroads. stop
ping all suits against them.
Among other things, Mr. Williams
sIld about the matter: IF the test suit
case Introduced by MIR Mayleld. a bill
tnat he had not read. was intended To
accomplish any purpose at all, it wa.
To stop the citizens OF the state from
ihv assertion OF their just and legal
ilSht9 in the courts. guaranteed to them
by tho constitution OF 1885 against rail
ROAD companies or ,nonopolics: and fur
thor. to rcptal ali fines. penalties and
remedies. so that we are left without
any protection III that respect To show
"here tho oplc suffer by the merger
act ana consultations OF competing
hvS ana acts OF like nature. look al
the rat" on sugar and soap from New
f.
tons. Previous to 1898 and before the
consultations OF the competing lines
the rate on sugar was % cents per 1OC
pounds. Since then or since 1899. the
rate between the same points is As
cents. Soap under the same ,acts has
gone up from 2S to IS cents. There is
Whery the people are suffering and
that is what the railroads wanted and
with the aid of Mr. Mayheld they go,
it,
The Jim Crow Car Act
Mr Williams charged Mr.. Mayheld at
Beaufort with having voted against the
'J!;m Grow Car Bui" Oh its second reao-
IHs Wien Ills vote was most needed
and when the life or death Of = bill IS
AT St.kc. the vote standing 10 To Is in
favor OF the bill. and he claimed that
II one more senator had changed as
Mr.. Mayiield had done, the bill would
nave been lost ana groes would be
ilGlnE with the white people in railroad
cars.
In answer MIR NJ yield said that he
"Veiu ivpiy - ,nTJ cnarge at Hampton
tn" New ana Courier Of Aug. 1. I'm re-
porting Mr.. Mayh Ids speech. says;
In answer to Mr Williams declara tion
at RcAutort that hc had voted against
th' Jim Crow Car Bin" In 1898. Mr.
Mayh'!d prodGeca the records showing
'h1t his vote on the matter had been
recorded ON tho righ, side. His oppo-
n"nt must know that such statements
were false a"d unsupported by the re-
cords The accusations made again.,
him or other things which he did not
nav" time 10 discuss or answer. wer.
ass tails ana ha clyss MS the accusotior
to nj vote on tn" Jim Crow Car
Bill"
1t is wei ta remember that state.
mrui ana COUPE It with what follows
NJ IN" Hampton meeting Mr. Williams
also produced the record the SENATE
snrnm II l>2S. paso 232. which show,
'A.i Air Mayii voted against the bill
charge! 10y Mr. Williams. notw,,b.
-iandi"s tia; n" had denied it. but nov
admits il; saying it must be mistake
iu tha cn.ry.
A. Barnw.m Mr.. MayneId read =. no
per admitting tn lis name os crar,ad
hy Mr. Williams. appeared as voiina
may ON tine second reading of tbe
bill but th"t that must bc an error IN
th entry
.. his manifesto IN a recent issue NJ
ne ('fTg.Iels