The Dillon herald. [volume] (Dillon, S.C.) 1894-????, 1909-05-06
Capt. Sellers Makes Charac-
teristi- Reply to Mr.. John
son a n d Throws More
Light on the Woodbury.
and Britton's Neck Elec-
tions. The Controversy
is Making Woodbury. and
Britton's Neck a Place in
History.

To the Editor of the News
and Courier:
When a witness goes on the
stand and tells the plain unvar-
nished truth so that the case on
the opposite side is totally ruined
the only and best last thing for the
poor little lawyer is to tangle the
witness Or the case is gone and the
fee is unearned. 1t is a trick of
the trade. A favorite mode of
doing this is putting in the mouth
of the witness statements he has
never made. Force of habit, no
doubt, has caused Mr.. Johnson is
his letter to your papar of April
22nd., to attempt the shifty meth
ods of a 2x4 lawyer in a public DIS
cussion of a public matter. He
cody puts in my mouth a commu
nication from Dillon published III
your paper Feb. 9th. last, and
bases his whole argument on a
premise.that is palpably absurd and
ridiculous. l am responsible only
for what appears in this discussion
over my own signature and l am
sure the News and Courier will
bear me out in the assertion that l
had nothing whatever to do with
the communication from Dillon of
Feb. 9th. l never read it, heard
of it, inspired it nor saw it till l
read it in the News and Courier
the morning of its publication.
The fact is when 1 read Mr.. John
sons first article in which he rath-
Ell pompously proposed to correct
some errors" in reference to the
New County saw very plainly
that he AS we'll as the correspond
ent from Dillon of Feb. 9th. were
both away off, as to the true in
wardness of the famous Britton's
Neck and Woodbury. petitions of
Is years ago that l wrote my first
letter in reply to Mr.. Johnson
correction of errors" was hon
estly endeavoring to lead them
both into the light in a matter in
which they were both bungling the
plain facts of history. I have heard
of no kick coming from the Dillon
man so he must accept my version
of the Britton's Neck and Wood
bury petition as being correct, but
my friend Mr.. Johnson continues
to kick worse than a bronco and
will not see the light" though I
am fortified by The files of the News
and Courier and the Marion Star
of 1896. Mr.. Johnson's whole ar
gument is based first on the as
sumption and then the bald asser.
tion that was the author of the
communication from Dillon Feb.
'27th. THIS major premise being
now effectually disposed of and
eliminated what becomes of his
minor premise and conclusion-the
whole thing falls to the ground
fiat, stale and improbable.
Again l reiterate: I'VE have not
been and are not now discussing
sswhat may or may not have hap
pened in Woodbury. township Is
years ago in reference to the at
tempt of the Marion politicians 10
kick that township off into Horny,
but we are discussing the Britton's S
Neck and Woodbury. petitions, "
the same petition that was discuss
i ed in the N. & G. in 1896 the
SAME petition which the Marion
Star defended and championed for
the Britton's Neck and Woodbury.
people when it said in its issue of
Nov. 4th, 1896 (not Dec. 20, as
Mr.. johnson has it. If the
people ask it as they have in this
particular, to which we are oppo-
sed, the governor is bound under