Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1919-09-24
AS TO SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.
MIR. Mcdonald Feels Aggrieved and
Defends Himself.
Walhalla. Sent %. 1a1o

1t was not my intention to again
write an article for your paper, be-
cause I dislike newspaper controyer-
sizes, for a person rarely ever gains
thereby. But since my little article
was published in your paper on Sent.
8, relative to the compulsory educa-
tion law, no less than four. persons
taken time to Jab at me in your
paper about It, For that reason,
feel compelled to say few words in
self-defense.
In the last paper, some one wrote:
why does Mr.. Med. favor illit-
eracy?' Yet, you would not publish
his name. That's not fair to me.
His name should have appeared un-
der his incorrect supposition.
AS to your editorial and the article
or the attendance officer, published
Sept. 10, l have but this to say:
shall not argue with a woman. Far
be 1T from me. 1t Is not in my sys-
tenn to argue and dispute with any
woman. Ever since Adam fell under
the persuasive argument Of Eve III
the Garden Of Eden, so likewise has
man constantly succumbed to
woman's argument ever since.
That's why Congress, being out of
Its own senses, voted in favor Of an
amendement to our National Con-
stitution for woman's suffrage. Be-
sides, Mr.. Editor, ! shall not reply to
her, because the Hughs family ana
the Mcdonald families have always
been neighbors and friends. | have
eaten at their table, they have eaten
at ours. The Hughs children and
the Mcdonald children were raised
mp together and went to the same
-Richland. MS. Rankin was
a HuRhs, before she married have
the very highest regard for her.
always thought she had the same
for me. Although she used vindic-
tive and abusive language towards
me, | shall only take off my hat to
her as my reply.
You said in your editorial that
Mrs. Rankins resignation was loss
to Oconee county. 1t might have
been. 1t was not my intention to
force her out Of office. If you will
return to my article Of Sept. 3, and
read it again, you will observe that
l used no abusive language and
spoke i'll of no one. | only en-
deavored to explain the law as
saw it, and no matter whether | am
a political accident or not tfor if
was, the accident happened twice.,
| only wished to debate the law Oh
its merits for tho benefit of my
friends. | only wished to stress the
point that. to comply with the law,
one could go to school any four
months during the school term he
desires-just SO he went the four
months. said | did not object to
the attendance officer compelling
them to go consecutively, but did
protest III compelling them TO go the
first four months. The law says:
"Four consecutive months, or
eighty days. during the scholastic
year" If the words during the
scholastic year," do not give one
the lawful right to select the four
months to attend school, then / don't
know anything, or else somebody
else doesn't There are many poor
families in this county. Most OF the
white families, for whose benefit this
law WAS made, are tenants, and they
need the services Of their boys OF
teen years to pick cotton during cot
ton-picking time. | had it to do
when was that old, and why
shouldn't they? | was only trying
to help the ignorant man who was
heing mislead. If Mrs. Rankin was
right, she should not have resigned,
but ought to have stuck out and
followed The law as the real law
yers" gave it to her. 1t may be
right to make the children go four
consecutive months. but there Is no
lawyer, worthy Of being called
lawyer, who will say the children
can be made go the first four months
Of any term, instead OF four months
later on, during the term. A
scholastic year is from July 1 to
June 30th Of each year.
The law provides a remedy for
making the children 60 the full term.
and that is when majority Of the
qualified voters Of any school dis
trict petition the County Board Of
dren will have to begin when school
does, and go all Of it.. But that was
not the point under discussion in
my first article. However, I said in
it that | would love to see them go
all 'iH .rr!o
Then why "O'.id your editorial say
am opposing tho law? Why could
that person say the same thing in
last weeks Courier, whose name did
not appear over his assertion? You
m. stated thc facts. I am not op-
posing compulsory education. i am
for it and have always been. | voted
for 1t when it became law. The
laws all right! 1t is Just the way
one looks at it. 1t passed in the
shape ~ which il came from the
Senate You said in your editorial:
"Somc t,ay--and it Will be a great
day Of ef!iciency---wc will probably
have, as necessary adjunct to our
law-mak:ng body, Il competent per-
son to have oversight Of the draft