Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1914-08-25

We have not agreed with the editor
of The Yorkville Enquirer on things
political for two or three years, but
we have respected him all along TO-
his honesty end we have admired has
course n position in which we fet
that he did not rightfully belong. He
has conducted his paper cleanly, and
he has not forced his own views on
the public in an Objectionable man
ner. He has cheerfully conceded the
right of others to differ with him. In
the current issue of his paper he has
an editorial which pleases us greatly.
And we may say, with due modesty
that what the editor of The Enquirer
says about himself the editor of the
Daily Mail might say about himself
Anderson Daily Mail.
Now while we feel very much COM
plimented at the sincere approval
with which the Mail reproduces what
we had to say last Friday with ref
erencc to the conduct Of The Enquirer,
we beg leave to call its attention to
the f4ct that it has said some things it
would find difficult to explain. No
complaint, neighbor, and no reproach,
kindly toward you as we did in the
days when honest, able and fearless
old Carpenter held your editorial col
umnS up to standard that has sell
dom been excelled. We take all you
say above in good faith, and it pleases
US to do so. But if The Enquirer has
been honest, clean, considerate of the
rights of others and has refrained
from forcing it's views on the public
in an Objectionable manner how could
you disagree with il in things politi
cal, and how could you feel that it
was in a position in which it does not
rightfully belong? You have us puz-
zled. Maybe however, you have in
mind the difference between reputa-
character is what a man is and repu-
tation is what people say he is. There
used TO be in this state certain edi-
tor of much moral force, who was not
very particular about his methods; but
whose most striking characteristic was
desire to compel other papers to
chime in with and echo him whether
they felt that way or not This editor
was about as partisan as man ever
gets to be, and although he knew there
were two sides TO every question,
there could be no right side but his
side, and the idea that showing both
sides was any part of the mission of
true newspaper never seemed to oc-
cur to him. The time we refer to was
during the early days of the Tillman
movement. Feeling ran high and
within certain limits the words Till
mantle and anti-Tillmanite served as
much as epithets as well as adjectives
descriptive of political sentiment. The
political complexion of The Enquirer
was about the same then as 1t is now.
We discussed things as we saw them
without first ascertaining whether any
particular sentiment or observation
would be approved in any particular
quarter. This editor used to repro
duce comments from the different pa
pers. and along with the credit would
designate the alleged politics of the
paper, and that designation was usu-
ally made in such manner as seemed
to suit his notion at the moment. For
instance some days this paper was
designated thus: "Yorkville Enquirer
(Tillmanite) :" sometimes "Yorkville
Enquirer, Conservative; and some
times York Enquirer (neutraD and
at other times "Yorkville Enquirer,
nti-Tillmanite). This conduct used
to worry some of the papers wonder
fully, and it drove some of them away
from their bearings, but ii did not Tease
The Enquirer. as we remember, for
this paper had been alive quite while
even then. In matters political we
have always preferred to be non-par-
tisan. That was the teaching Of the
founder of the paper, and he seldom
allowed his practice to depart from
his preaching. We do not claim that
we are always as successful in holding
to our desire to be absolutely non
partisan. because if we did make such
a claim we would at the same time set
up the absurd pretense of being super
human. But somehow we never have
been able to reconcile the idea of try
ing to show that the shortcomings OF
one individual were worse than those
of another when on a basis of the
facts in our possession, we do not be-
lieve any such thing. But getting back
to the question of character and repu-
tation. In one respect the newspaper
is on the same basis of an individual.
Each makes his own character and
other people make their reputation.
An individual finds it necessary to be
careful of his character and Jealous
of his reputation. The newspaper must
also be careful of its character, but
when it comes to reputation it need
not be so vitality concerned, because
the character goes out to every reader
with every issue and so long as the
readers are satisfied the public has
very little concern as 10 what other
people might think.