The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1907-10-02
PRlVATEER SCHOOL AFFAIRS.
~ furthcr contribution to the Discus
sion Growing Out of Public School
Consultation.

Privateer, S. c., Sept. 27.-I know
that you and the public are getting
tired of the "Privatcer School Affairs, 3"
so Will try in this article to- clear nv
self Of the mass" OF certificates, etc,
that Is arrayed against me this week.
Really enough to appall a poor farm
er boy.
There are now two questions in.
volved. 1st. Was this committee a
self-appointed committee? or was it a
committee appointed by the authority
OF the schools for the purpose Of To-
eating two schools in Western Priva-
teer? I'd. Was Mr.. Cain secretary
OF three mass" meetings of the citi-
zens Of Privateer?
/ will take up the second ouestion
first-for in the proof Of this lies the
answer to the first. Now as to the
certificates, and wish 1t distinctly
understood, do not question the We
racity Of any one Of the signers of
this certificate. but their judgment
and understanding of what they sien-
ed. I will state that do not ques-
ton Mr.. Gains claim to having been
secretary Of 'three meetings" but
three mass meetings. Now to show
the worth of the certificate. On the
day of the second meeting. No. 2, we
will say: Where were Messrs. ]. M.
Jackson. B. ]. Jackson, r. T. Mcleod,
w. o. Cain and ]. r. Kolb? Were
they present and did they remain dur
ing the entire meeting?
At meeting No. 1. where was Mr..
Jno. F. Ingram? No. 3. Where was
Mr. s. A. Harvin? II any of these
gentlemen were absent from any one
meeting. how could they certify as to
three mass meetings and who was
secretary? Meeting No. 1 was really
mass" meeting. only it was not
legally and properly advertised as
was stated by several during the meet
ing.
Now. Mr.. Editor. comes the test of
the whole question. What kind Of
meeting was the second? No. 2. At
the first meeting q resolution was
passed recommending to the trustees.
to build two graded schools-one in
Ea0tnRn
Privateer-subject to the approval Of
the schools. All OF the schools ex-
cept the RED Oak" held public mass
meetings at their school houses Of
their patrons.
Mr.. j. NJ. kolb, who had something
20 say this week. called a meeting Of
the Red oak patrons ana ne and your
correspondent We're The only ones who
attended. therefore there was no
meeting Of the patrons Of the Red
Oak school. Mr.. Kolb did 60 around,
l heard, and saw the patrons sepa-
rately. but there was no public meet
ing of the patrons OF the Red Oak
school for public discussion and con-
ference. and no delegate, committee
nan nor anything else. authorized by
public mass meeting Of the patrons
OF the Red Oak school. So much for
the Red Oak school. Now who was
authorized to represent. and who
represented by authority. the "Red
Oak" school? Yet in the third meet
Ing Mcssrs. ]. M. Kolb and w. o.
Cain (who has not been been a patron
Of the Red Oak school for four years.
but the Bethel schooI. represented
the Red Oak school.
The other schools held their meet
ings and elected delegates to report to
the trustees what they had decided up
on. This constituted the second meet
ing. The following schools were rep
resented at that meeting. Providence,
Bethel and Gill Gall by delegates ap.
pointed at their regular meetings.
The Tindal, Mellett or Jackson, the
Red Oak and the Ingram schools
were not represented by elected dele
gates. besides these delegates there
were about eight or ten spectators, as
1t were. will state that there were
about six delegates. The business Of
this meeting was to hear reports
from the schools.
providence reported in favor Of
Consolidation. Bethel reported in IA
'or of consolidation provided a suitu-
BILE location could be had. Gill Gail
reported against consolidation. There
were statements made from the In
gram. Mellett. Tindal and Red Oak
schools by parties present, but they
stated at the time that they were not
delegates from these schools nor pa