The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1915-02-17
THE STATE
VS.. GRAYDON
THE FIFTY CAR BILL

Representative vi dyu uoh uoS ihIAo
Guced in the House a bill forbidding
railroads to haul more than fifty cars
in one train. The State and News and
Courier had able articles last week at
tacking the law. Mr.. Graydon on Fri
day wrote the State as follows in de-
fense of the bill:
To the Editor of The State:
1t has been said that consistency is
& jewel. If SO, I am afraid that The
State lacks great deal of being a
jewel. 1t has always pretended to be
friend Of the laboring man. 1t pre-
tended last summer to be in favor of
the platform upon which the present
governor was elected. In your issue of
ture the general assembly for failing
February 10, you take occasion to lee
te adopt the administration measures,
and lament the fact that five weeks
have passed and nothing has been
To- done.
Your paper has always pretended
t. be the friend of the laboring man,
but now that Gov. Manning has been
elected on the platform in which one
If the prominent planks was the pas
sage of laws In favor Of the laboring
people of the State, you are the first
Cne to turn against the platform and
endeavor to have that plank of it null
lifted. The laboring people, so far,
have asked the general assembly to
pass only one bill-the Graydon a0-
car bill, as the newspapers have
dubbed it. Organized labor in South
Carolina is solidly at the back Of said
bill, as is shown by the fact that they
have numerous representatives In Co.
lumbia working for the passage Of the
bill. Does the editor Of The State pre-
tend to know more about the opera
ton of trains than the men who have
spent their lives in the business of
running trains? The railroad people
are unanimous in saying that to run
trains of over so cars in length is
dangerous to the lives Of the employees.
Does The State suppose that they do
hot know their business? You even
twit the, legislature for exempting
railroads under 80 miles in length.
Who is responsible for that provision
In the bill? The railroad people in the
legislature put that in for the sole
purpose of weakening the bill. The
euthor o fthe bill protested against
the amendment, but was unable tc
prevent its insertion In the bill, yet
The State, with its usual unfairness.
seizes upon that as an argument
against the bill.
You state that a simple assertion
carries no conviction, yet you pro-
coed to state, as If you were the em.
bodiment Of all wisdom, that to limit
the number of cars will unquestion.
ably check railroad operation. And you
expect the people to believe your sim
pie assertion, not only of present facts
but wish them to believe that you are
4 prophet, as we'll, and can tell what
is going to happen in the future. But
no one need be surprised. Your article
is along the line that you, and other
friends Of the railroads, have always
taken. You care absolutely nothing
for the safety Of the men who operate
the railroads but you are very So
licitous less the poor railroad be i'm
posed upon.
How can Gov. Manning, or any
member of this general assembly, go
before the working people in another
election and claim to be their friends.
unless they pass the only piece of leg
islation that has been proposed at this
session by the working men Of South
Carolina? The State should help Gov
Manning to carry out his pledges. IT
should assist the legislature in every
manner in it's power to carry out the
pledges made to the people during the
past campaign. But let any one offer
Lill that merely squints at railroad
companies, and the State, together
with all the other calamity howlers, is
ON track of the working people oi
South Carolina. swearing that the pas
sage of the bill will spell absolute
ruin to the whole people.
You state that the burden of proof
is on the proponents fthis bill. Un'
man, and never upon the rich cor.
corporation.
The State may pretend as much as
it pleases that it is the friend Of the
working man, but actions speak loud
er than words, and whenever it comes
cka4o l., ovor m fh6