Year: 1874

The Charleston Courier Of the 9Th hS


an editorial on this subject which con


cludes as follows;


The 1RTELLIGENcER pretends 10 be


lleVe that the Third District intends /


combine her delegates against all con


Stituencies that do not come to the SUP


port OF Charleston on the Capital ques


ton. As we understand 1t, the people o


the Third District simply want theil


delegates to refrain hereafter from com


btning with those who respect no pledges
and keep no faith. II those who have
proved uniaithtul heretofore, are able tC
take the Capital, let them take 1t, bu,
they needn't come to this country to push
through their pet measures on the basis
OF Capital Swaps, and then after they
have got what they want, turn round and
break the terms Of their own bargains.


Charleston secured the Capital per-
manently on condition that she would
furnish q Stale House. She Is entitled
to keep It, and she proposes TO keep II.
She has had several hard struggles al.
ready, and will probably have more.
when the contest Is over, or while 1t Is
raging, she does not intend to kiss the
hand that smites her. She declares war
on nobody, but while war Is being waged
against her she don't intend to keep the
peace.


Our readers in the First and Second
Congressional Districts will not fail to no.
tice that this utterance from the Courier
Is as mysterious as ever in regard to what
the Third District intends to do in refer.
ence to the Capatal question. Why can
not that paper come out and say squarely
what 1t means, instead Of charging that
the"INTELITaRNcER pretends to believe"
thus and 80. What Is meant by saying
that the people Of the Third District
simply want their delegates to refrain
hereafter from combining with those who
respect 70 pledges or keep no faith" Mr..
WALLER has no difficulty, as a general
thing, in making himselfunderstood when
heis anxious not to be Inexperienced.
Now, II he does not mean to threaten to
combine the delegates Of the Third Dis
trict Tor the preservation OF the Capital at
Charleston he can easily say 3d. Instead
Of saying that however, he says that
charleston secured the Capital perma.
nently on condition that she would furnish
State House. She Is entitled to keep it,
and she proposes to keepit." We under.
stand this statement to refer to combina.
tion Of the Third District delegates for the
purpose of keeping the Capital where 1t
is. Mr.. WALKER can easily explain, in
clear and unmiStakable language, what
he means il our Interpretation is not cor
rect. BE chooses to employ ambiguous
language in his articles on this subject
and then complains Of being misinter-
preted. Let him come out and explain
his mysterious insinuations about those
"who respect no pledges and keep no
faith" Who does he mean? What
transactions does he reIer toS Let him
explain also when, where and by whom
1t was agreed that the Capital should re.
main at Charleston on condition that she
would furnish State House? Such a
statement needs proof to accompany it in
order to be believed. Let Mr.. WALKER
give people the data for such an assertion.
We assert that there was no agreement of
the kind made by any parties competent
to enter into it on behalf OF the State
Such an agreement could only have
weight in law in the shape OF an act OF the
Legislature, and no such act was ever
passed.