The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1908-02-12
Entered at the postofice at Laurens,
S. c.. as second class mail matter.
LAURENs, S. c., FEBRUARY IL, 1908.
HIGH JINKS IN THE SENATE.

In the South CarO)lna oenalc iaoI
Friday there was a high old time. 1t
e that a senator known to fame
as "My dear Appelt," was proved
guilty of having piled his vocation as
an editor while holding the office of
senator, and that some Of his brother
senator's" discerned reflections upon
themselves in one of his flaming screeds.
These latter were lawyer senator's. The
moral Of the whole affair seems to be
that it is much harder to be an editor
senator than a lawyer senator. The
former nearly always quits his foot
into it," and the latter v does.
1t seems that Mr.. Applet was
thought to have limited disparagingly
at senators who had voted against the
Otis resolution or other legislation con
nected with the dispensary investiga-
ton while representing accused persons
or whisky houses.
We are sure that a man may repre-
sent a client in pending litigation and
vet vote conscientiously on legislation
possibly affecting the litigation, but we
think that he should refrain from vot-
ing, in justice to himself. That is what
the senator from Richland did, and in
that his position is unassailable. Now
we have in mind two senators-Mr.
Williams, of Lancaster, and Mr.. Sink
Ter, of Charleston-who voted against
the Otis resolution, but we know that
their votes we're conscientiously cast,
because we know the men. We do not
know whether they ever represented
whisky houses or not, but they would
vote with only the public interest in
view in any circumstances. But sup
pose the Senate contained a man in
whose integrity we or others lack con-
fdence, and he should vote on a resolu-
ton in a way that would help his client,
what would we and those others think
of him? Yet we have no right to apply
q rule to one man that we do not apply
to another.
1t seems to us that the severest re-
Election last upon any of the senators
was one contained in a speech of Sena-
tor Raysor, who was d%enouncing Mr..
Appelt's article, although Senator Ray
sor was quite unconscious of it as a re-
Election, and did not so intend it. We
quote from the Estates" report:
"He denounced as an infamous out
rage the reflection made upon tue SEN
ate of South Carolina IN the article
read. Men usually judge others, he
said, by the standards they set up for
themselves. Men who act honestly, and
whose motives are pure, rarely even at
tribute impure motives to others. He
said he considered it an imperative duty
to put the gag of public denunciation
upon such utterances as that contained
in the article referred to, and state
ments contained in that article were a
direct insult to this body, and were
nothing less than an outrage and an
infamy.
"He said that he had never repre-
scented a whisky house in any claim be-
fore the ~dispensary commission, and ne
does not represent any of the parties
who have been indicted as a result of
the investigation of the affairs of the
d~ispensary. He said he had been APP
preached by n man who was formerly
connected with the State ~dlspensary,
aHU dlJIlOOSll tIllS ltl q " tiLSloliS
personal friend and he has confidence
in his integrity, he refused to consult
with him until after the adjournment
of the LEGISLATURE
If this report is accurate, Senator
Raysor said in effect this: "Some of
you senators have done a thing for
which nobody has a right to criticise
your motives. But | was asked to do
this same thing for a lifelong friend,
and / refused to do it, and ! wouldn't
do it until after the Legislature adj
journs." Now the question forces it
self-why wouldn't Senator Raysor do
this thing for his friend, if he could do
it without mourning the danger of le-
gitimate criticism? What caused Sena-
tor Raysor to refuse his friends re-
quest?
However, the whole affair was a tenn
pest in a teapot. A resolution was pre-
scented that my dear Applet" be
brought before the bar of the Senate.
Thereupon the redoubtable Applet
that at the bar of the Senate he
would say it again. Later the fear
some resolution was withdrawn. No
newspaper editor has business in the
Legislature. The Legislature should
be composed of lawyers and farmers.
Newspaper editors should stay at home
and attend to their business. They are
always making fools of themselves.
They talk too much; they are danger
Gus. We shall never cease to regret
that "My dear Applet" was not
dragged before the bar of the Senate.
1t would have taught him a lesson. No
newspaper writer in South Carolina is
better fitted than Applet "to make a
Roman holiday" If any editor is to
be lynched, we vote here and now for
Applet. But if he had been logged be-
fore the bar Of the Senate it would
have made a great man of him. 1t
would have caused him to be elected
secretary of State, or adjutant and in
spector general. We can imagine no
greater blessing for a politician than to
be brought before the bar Of the SEN
ate, there to be dissected, chastised,
fagellated, spat upon, drawn and quar-
tered. And yet the escape of Applet
was one of the most hair breadth that
we have read of at any time.
On the whole we move that the Sen
u -