The Batesburg advocate. [volume] (Batesburg, S.C.) 1901-1911, 1904-08-25

through the legislature. In addition to
the denial of Mr.. Mayfield that he pre-
pared the bill, he stated on the stump
that he had not even read 1t when he
introduced 1t. 1t was fathered by him
In its passage and was known as the
Mayiield BILL" yet on the stump he
made the denials as given
Mr.. Williams stated on the stump
that as Mr. Mayheld denied a bill that
ne had successfully carried through,
anu denied all responsibility In connec-
uon with 1t that he could only con-
ciude under the circumstances, that IL
was railroad measure prepared by a
railroad attorney and pushed through
by Mr.. Mayheld as a representative OF
the railroads, especially as it was for
the sole benefit Of the railroads. stop
ping all suits against them
Among other things Mr. Williams
said about the matter: IF the test suit
case introduced by Mr.. Mayfield. a bill
that he had not read was intended to
accomplish any purpose at all. IT wa.
TO stop the citizens OF the state from
inc assertion OF their just and legal
lishts In the courts, guaranteed to them
ny the constitution OF 1895. against rail-
road companies monopolies; and fur
ther, to reptal all fines. penalties and
ieieuics' SO tnat We are left without
any protection in that respect. To show
"here the people suffer by the merger
act and consultations OF competinp
lines and acts OF a like nature. look M
the rate on sugar and soap from New
Aorh TO Aiken and other nearby sta
uons Previous to 1898 and before the
consultations of the competing lines
the rate on sugar was 22 cents per 100
pounds. Since then or since 1899 the
rate between the same points is az
ceh's. soap under the same facts has
gone up from rs to As cents There is
where the people are suffering. and
that is what the railroads wanted and
with the aid OF Mr.. Mayheld they got
it," ' e'I
The Jim Grow Car Act.
Mr. Williams charged Mr.. Mayfield nj
beaufort with having voted against the
Jim Crow Car Bill" on its second read
ing when his vote was most needed
and when the life or death OF , hill 60
at stake, the vote standing 10 to is in
laVor or the bill, and he claimed that
IL one more senator had changed as
Mr. Aayheld had done, the bill would
nave been lost and negroes would be
riding with the white people i'm railroad
cars.
In answer Mr.. Mayield said that he
would reply to that charge at Hampton
The News and Courier of Aug. 4 I'm re-
porting Mr.. Maytield's speech. saws:
In answer to Mr.. Williams declaration
a' beaufort that he had voted against
inc Jim Crow Car Bill" in 1898. Mr..
Mayheld produced the records showing
that his vote on the matter had been
recorded on the right side. His oppo
hot
Were false and unsupported by the re-
cords. The accusations made spain.,
MN on other things which he did not
nave time to discuss or answer xara
as raise and bare eless as the accusation
as TO his vote on the Jim Crow Car
Bill" ~
IL Is well to remember that state
ment and couple it with what follows
At the Hampton meeting Mr.. Williams
also produced the record the Senate
journal OF 1898. page 232. which sbows
that Mr.. Mayficld voted against the hin
as charged by Mr.. Williams. notwitb-
standing that he had denied II. but nou,
admits it. saying it must be a mistake
in the entry
AT Barnwon Mr.. Mayfield read a ma
per admitting that his name. as cborgoa
by Mr. Williams appeared as voting
may on the second reading of the
Dill but that that must be an error In
the entry.
IN ms manifesto in a recent issue NJ
me chronicle after ample proof bad
bten produced to settle the matter de-
hhiteiy. and after the Caughman letter
mad been time and again read from the
stump he again reiterates that there
must be some mistake. but never prov-
ing ii
produce the letter OF Mr.. Caugbman
p"'e 'hdt there was no error I'm
me record which reads as follows:
columbia. s. c.. Aug 8. 1901.
ron l.. j. Williams, Edgefeld. s C.