The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1905-10-04
THE COLLEGE NATTER.
Mr.. s. II. Edmunds Explains His Posi-
tion-His Reasons for Advocat-
ing the Location of the Col
lege Here.

To the Editor of The Daily Item:
AS chairman of the committee ap-
pointed by the citizens Of Sumter 10
solicit subscriptions for the removal
of +he college now at Clinton to Sum-
| ter I feel it my duty to express my
sentiments at the result Of the dello-
erations of the board of trustees OF
the Presbyterian College of South
Carolina.
At the time when the question OF
removal was first mentioned 1 hap
rened to be in Columbia. On my
way homeward was approached oy
one of the trustees of this institution
and urged to try to get Sumter to
make the fight to locate the college
here. This gentleman has said to me
since that he wished he was not a
member of the board so that he coulo
impress the people Of Sumter with
the advantages of a college. l asked
him the attitude of Clinton and ne
answered that the way was clear. In
order not to make any mistake ask
ed three or four Of the trustees II the
| intentions to remove the college were
real. Each answered in the afflrn1a-
tive. At a public meeting at which
we had an official representative OF
the board I made the statement that
NOT a citizen of Sumter would give a
dollar or take a step if it were believed
that Clinton would be injured. That
Sumter had no desire to cripple any
town and that if the way to the re-
moval of the college from Clinton
| were not perfectly clear that Sumter
would stop at once. We were as
sured that the citizenship of Clinton
had expressed absolute confidence in
the wisdom and the integrity Of the
board and that the college belonged
not to Clinton but to the Presbyte-
rians of the State and they had per-
feet right to put the college wherever
they pleased. The impression was
| made upon all Of the people of Sum
ter that conditions were such at Clin-
ton that the college would have to be
removed. These conditions have not
been changed The board claims that
an official statement was issued to the
effect that the college would not be
removed unless the inducement was
great. Granted; but after this state
ment had been issued the impression
was created upon many reasonable
minds that the college would certainly
be removed if they could get sufflc-
| lent funds to proc a site and house
| the board who visited Sumter knew
that this impression was universal.
Why was no effort made to remove it?
The local influences at Clinton have
not changed the location certainly has
not, Clinton's offer did not compare
with that of Bennettsville-why was
the college not removed?
This is a serious question, involv.
| ing many considerations Of duty and
honor and while I would not presume
to reflect upon any of these gentle
men they owe to the citizens Of the
State more of an explanation than
any that has been made public so far.
I regret very much the decision Of
the board I regret it because it
makes it appear that Sumter has been
trying to rob Clinton Of its college.
Sumter has none of this spirit ana
had she known what she knows nov:
Sumter could not have been induced
; to have ANYTHING to do with it. Clin-
ton could have retained this institu-
ton forever undisturbed by any citi-
zen of Sumter.
regret it, because instead of a
feeling OF disappointment the action
of the board has created a feeling of
bitterness and the great Presbyterian
College of South Carolina will forever
be q dream.
regret it, because if the board had
wished to make its integrity of pur-
pose clear to all men. it should have
declined 10 receive one dollar from
Clinton. declared all bids off and let
things be as they have always been
Eut do not regret it as far as sum
ter is concerned, for the spirit of