Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1907-11-26

that a red light was shown to tie up
the line, or a white one to show q
clear track? Or does it simply pass
the inquiry on-"transmit by signal
as Webster has it?
Either Of those we'll posted papers
ought to know that there has been
more done to push the merger suit In
the past few months than for years
past. The present attorney general
the docket in Richland county and II
it is not tried at the next term Of court
II will not be his fault. 1t seems that
the special judge last appointed to sit
in Richland county Is an attorney for
the Southern railroad, one Of the par
ties involved in this litigation, which
makes 1t impossible for him to hear
II. But the Judge was not appointed
by the attorney general.
Mr.. Lyons three predecessors strug-
gled with this case for some four years
II our memory Is correct, and we sug-
gest this shows he is confronted with
a difficult task and that 1t Is rather
early in his term to be calling him tc
book If there is a disposition to Offer
criticism of a state officer we sugges,
that it would be well to find out first
from the office in question just what
in particular, one in which an investi-
CATION Is involved, 1t Is not wise to
give to the newspapers, and through
them to those fighting the states cause
full information as to all the steps that
are being taken by the state. Only the
last chapters of an investigation ap-
pear in the papers, the first have to be
written, however, and 1t takes time
Beaufort Gazette.
1t is not the habit Of The Enquirer
to treat serious matters f1ippantly; but
since our contemporary has taken the
matter so seriously, we will frankly ad-
nit departure from the rule In this
case and make an explanation. The
Enquirer has never had a great deal
to say about this merger suit, further
than to print the record Of develop
ments. Why the Daily Mail directed
its question over this way, we do not
known. Our first inclination was to let
the question pass. Then there was
hesitation as whether to answer with
the statement, Draw head pulled out"
AS a matter Of fact, we should have
followed our first inclination, which
would have been more consistent with
our position all along. We have never
thought much Of this merger suit, ex-
cept as pie for the lawyers. The suit,
in our opinion, was brought originally,
not so much for the purpose of vindi-
eating the law as because Of the pos
sibility Of getting the 500 a day pro-
vided as penalties. The act that made
1t the duty Of the attorney general to
push the case to a conclusion remov-
ed in a measure the enthusiasm Of
those who took the first initiative.
Our own view, based upon rather lin
tied information we admit, Is that II
the plaintiff should prevail the public
would be the loser. In fact some OF
the railroad people claim, and with
good show of reason. that had 1t not
been for this suit, the Fishing Creek
wreck would have never occurred.
They say that the old Three C's would
have long before been put In first class
condition. This may or may not have
been done. If the old Three Cs Is TAX
en- out Of the hands Of the Southern, 1t
may be better for the people along its
route; but how 1t will be better we
confess we are unable to see. How
ever, let all that be as It may and let
the law in the case be properly estab-
lished. And also we would have the
Beaufort Gazette and the Anderson
Daily Mail, both to understand that
by the word semaphored. we meant no
reflection upon the Southern railroad
or the attorney generals office either
past or present. There can certainly
be no reason or justice in holding the
present attorney general responsible
for business that two or three Of his
predecessors have been unable to bring
to q conclusion.