Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1908-08-18

| would have the public believe that he
did not say at Ogden that he sacrific-
ed his home to Winthrop fifteen years
ago for exactly $3,O0O," as was re-
ported in The Enquirer, but that he
| said "over $1,000" That is the claim
| he made in Rock Hill Saturday in
| reply to the card published by "One
of the Appraisers" stating that the
price paid was $4,000 Although Mr.
| Stewart was kind enough to refrain
from denouncing The Enquirer for
misrepresenting him as to this partic-
ular matter, Intentionally or other
wise, it is clearly up to US to make
some further observations. Here is
a clean cut contradiction. "One of the
Appraisers" contradictS Mr.. Stewart,
and Mr.. Stewart is confined to one of
three courses. He must admit that he
said what he is reported to have said,
or contradict "One of the Appraisers"
or deny that he said what he was re-
ported to have said. The fact in the
case being a matter of public official
record, it was not eXpedient to con-
tradict "One Of the Appraisers" If
the idea of a frank admission and
apology received consideration, it was
evidently abandoned in favor of the
expedient Of denying the published
statement. The course pursued there
FORE throws the matter back on the
poor newspaper, and it is up to us to
clear our skirts as best we may The
publication of the card of "One of the
Appraisers" gave us the first notice
we had of any possible question, but we
were not slow to see from that card
that the matter would come back to
The Enquirer. 1t did not occur to us
to deny that we had quoted Mr. Stew
art as saying exactly $4,000, for among
other things our statement had become
matter of public record. 1t did oc-
cur to US that possibly we might be
mistaken and if we We're, we owed it
to ourselves, Mr.. Stewart and the Og-
den people to set the matter right;
but at the same time we were not un-
mindful of the fact that if we were
correct in the first instance we must
stand TO it for the same reasons. And
again, the people who heard the orig
inal statement would not permit us TO
change the true record, not even for
the purpose of keeping down a disa-
greement in the delegation" And so
we began to make some Inquiries Mr..
| j. X. SCOgginS, a newspaper man of
experience and Il high toned gentle
man, born and reared in the Ogden
| neighbOrhOOd, was present at the
meeting representing the Rock Hill
papers, and was in YOrkville after the
publication of the communication
from One of the Appraisers" We
asked him his recollection Of what
Mr.. Stewart said and he said that
| there was no question of the fact that
Mr.. Stewart said $1,000" without any
qualifications. Mr.. w. 5. Percival,
another thoroughly trustworthy citi-
zen of ogden, the gentleman on whose
premises the speaking was held and
who heard Mr.. Stewart speak, was in
Rock Hill last Saturday, and heard
Mr.. Stewart speak again. After the
speaking, the editor of The Enquirer
asked Mr.. Percival as TO his recollec-
ton as to what Mr.. Stewart said at
| Ogden. Mr.. Percival replied very
positivel'. that there was no question
of the fact that Mr.. Stewart had said
$4,000" without any qualifications.
have hagn advised that Mr.
'tewalt had made the same statement
at New Zion on the Saturday previous.
Our information is that he did not re-
fer to the matter again after the pub
lication of our synopsis of his Ogden
speech, until he reached Rock Hill. We
are informed that he left it out at
Tirzah, Bethany, Glover, Forest Hill,
I'D Fort Mill. That he should feel
compelled to refer to it again at Rock