The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1910-08-24
place. l asked him for a written state
ment of the substance of the letter
and here is what he wrote:
That Letter.

up in the up-country before the open
ing of the campaign-i. e. if there
was not a dcided favor shown for
the prohibition ticket-an effort
would be made to have the ticket
Withdrawn in order to allow
stronger man to announce himself for
governor, for whom the prohibition
lists could consistently vote"
1t is possible, barely possible, that
the gentleman was in error as to the
contents of the letter, and Mr.. Feath-
erstone did not engineer the with
drawal in order that he might Garry
the banner at the head of the COL
umn." But there is one indisputable
fact. Mr.. Featherstone knew from
my letter above that would not run
If withdrawn by our executive COM
mittee, he voted to withdraw the
nominees, he had several days in
which to remedy the wrong but made
no effort to do so.
Mr.. Featherstone will say he voted
to withdraw the ticket to help me.
Bosh! Let him show some way by
which it would help a candidate who
had accepted the prohibition nomina-
ton to withdraw him and declare him
| outside of Democratic ranks. Did he
expect me to canvass the State for
prohibition votes and at the same
time declare I was not the prohibi-
ton candidate?
In 1905.
Now as to what occurred in 1905"
Mr.. Featherstone admits the confer
ence held In the Jerome hotel the
first part Of October, 1905, names
some Of those who attended and then
! gives as the object of the meeting "to
discuss the situation in general and
to consider the advisability of putting
out a ticket in 1906" He also says
that "it was decided that It would
not be wise to put out a ticket. Il
was also decided that we would attend
the conference during fair weel
j which has been called, or which W.
anticipated would be, by Mr.. Brun
son and certain others and do wha
we could to keep them from putin,
out ticket" That is exactly wha
he came for. But that committe,
which met during fair week had n,
Authority to put out a ticket, and Mr
Fsatherstone knew it. Then instruc
irons given by the conference of Jun
10, 1905, TO tke COMMITTEES when cra
ated by II, as shown in your paper O
9une 1e, We're explicit and positiv
10 call general State conference
Mr.. Featherstone can not plead igno
rance Of this fact; for, not only ha,
the proceedings of the June Is con
ference been published by you, but, a
the request of member OF the com
! mittee which met during fair week
! were read before the committee, Mr.
Feather1stone being present.
| 'Ts That True?"
4 But the first part of Mr.. Feather
{ stones statement that the Jerom,
conference decidede not to patt out ;
| ticket. Is that true? I received ;
! letter dated October 5, 1903. f,,on
! "a gentlman Of unQuestioned varacitv
{ from Which I take a few words tc
cover the matter under consideration
J Where are we at in our prohibition
1ignt! MATTERS are assuming q
changed front from what existed il
June ..met several gentlemer
I"t the Jerome. They, all will
ONE accord felt that the prohibition
Hts should nominate ticket mex
| YEAR. We do not want Featherston,
he was in that conference.
Oaly few days passed before one
member OF that little Jerome caucu.
nominated smother member for gov
erhor, and i believe third member
nominated aAother for lieutenant gov
ernoc.
Mr.. Featherstone inists 1hat the
Jeron e conference decided not to put
| out ticket. Well, here are a large
number of the members OF that lit.
ale body, not osly in favor OF putting
out Il tcket, bur- actually nominating
| each other. IL that caucus decided
not to make non inaton it's members
should have beeN bound 10y it's ac-
ton. If Mr.. Featherstone's statement
be true, then it was a high-nanded
piece of bus mess far large number
of its members to GO the very thing
they Mad agreed WIZ h others not to
do.
Last: Mr.. Featherstone says hs Of