The times and democrat. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1881-current, 1908-01-10
WHY We Said It.

GQSWS, LdhS1 ShSCIo1AoAA y" - So
occurring in an editorial which
appeared in The Times and Democrat
recently in which we said 1--WE are
forced to the conclusion that some OF
the townships were butchered up as
they are for the express purpose OF
depriving certain electors OF their
constitutional right to vote On the
formation Of the new county"
Mr.. Wannanaker goes on to say
that it gives him pleasure to say
that the distinguished counsel who
represented the opponents of the
new county who could not vote fully
exonerated the promoters of Calhoun
County from any such purpose or in
tention," and "as a matter of fact
nc one knew how the law would op-
crate until long after the lines were
run, when the Attorney General gave
his opinion. %
We have not noticed this matter to
engage in any controversy with Mr..
Wannamaker, whom we have always
esteemed very highly, but simply to
state why The Times and Democrat
expressed the opinion it did in the
paragraph criticised by that gentle
man. twill be noticed that Mr.. Wan
nsmaker intimates that if the pro-
moters Of the new county had Of
known how the law would operate"
before the lines were run the great
injustice of depriving certain voters
of their right to vote would have
been avoided.
This all may be exactly as Mr.. Wan
namaker intimates, but The Times
and Democrat was lead to the, con-
clusion it expsessed from the fact
that the promoters Of the new coun-
Sy made no effort as far as we know
to correct the injustice done these
disfranchised voters after the Attor-
ney-General called attention to the
matter. It would have been an easy
matter to amend the lines Of the pro-
posed new county, as was done once
before in the interest Of its promot-
ers, so as all these disfranchised Yot-
ers could have participated in the
election.
Then again, The Times and Demo-
crat was lead to the conclusion it ex-
pressed from the fact that when
these disfranchised voters went to
the Supreme Court and asked that
the election be held up until their
rights could be secured, .he promot-
ers of the new county appeared in
court by their attorneys and success
fully resisted this reasonable effort
on the part Of these disfranchised
voters to secure the rights guaran-
teed to them by the constitution of
this State as well as by the constitu-
ton of the United States.
Then again, The Times and Demo
crat was forced to the conclusion it
expressed because there was great
bitterness manifested toward the
distinguished counsel who repre-
sented the opponents of the new coun-
ty who could not vote" in their ap-
peal 20 Il g Supreme Court simply be-
cause they had, in their capacity as
lawyers, tried to secure their clients
their constitutional right to vote. In
fact, it has been reported that on the
night Of the election at St. Matthews
<'that the distinguished counsel who
represented the opponents of the new
county who could not vote,'' and
whom Mr.. Wannamaker now justly
speaks of in the highest terms, were
burnt in effsgy by the promoters of
the new county. We do not know that
this is true, but it has been reported,
and we have seen no denial of it.
These are some of the reasons that
forced The Times and Democrat to
the conclusion it expressed in the
paragraph to which Mr.. Wannama-
ker takes exception. All of our con-
clusions may have been wrong, but
viewing the matter as we saw it, we
could arrive at 40 other, and we
think that Mr.. Wannamaker himself,
in the face of the incidents we have
mentioned, will admit that there was
just ground for that conclusion. The
Times and Democrat has no personal
feeling in the new county matter. 1t
impugns no mans motives, but it has
got a right TO criticise the public act
Of airy man or set Of men when that