University of South Carolina Libraries
SUPPLEMENT TO THE The Bamberg Herald BAMBERG, S. C., Thursday, August 25, 1904. CALHOUN'S TO MR > ?( Edgefield, S. C., Aug. 19.?The campaign meetings in this, the Second Congressional district of South Carolina, t have closed. The candidates, Messrs. Leon J. Williams, J. O. Patterson and S. G. Mayfield, are marshaling their forces for the vote on Aug. SO, when mill par tnhn txH]1 ronrpednt U1Q nm owj ??*?v ?*?m % us in the national house of representatives after March 4 next. ? The daily papers have given brief reports of the speeches of the men named at the various meetings, but those reports have not given those who have read them some of the most important features of the campaign; nor have they 0 fully presented to the people the men as they are. It is extremely important , for the voter to know for whom he is going to cast his vote; that is, what manner of man he is. * .. There has been the usual parade of oratory on national issues, trusts, railroads and the like, which sound well, but that does not portray the man. We must have to represent us in our national legislature, men upon whom we can rely and men whom we know to be tionai matters have been bandied sufficiently. It is now proposed to give some of the real happenings and Incidents of the campaign meeting, which will aid the people in forming a correct idea of certain matters and the men who have addressed them. I will quote from the records of the speeches, and use what I heard myself. It would be impossible to give in this brief account all of importance that I have in my ^ mind's eye, and I will select those which mark the men most definitely. For instance, take the handling of the political record of Mr. Mayfleld by Mr. Williams. During the campaign there was a very warm contest between those men, Mr. Williams having had Mr. Mayfleld on the defensive all the time. There were no very especial points of interest as regards Mr. Patterson except that Mr. Mayfleld, in trying to bolster up his own case, claimed that k he (Patterson) had voted as he did on the legislation named below, and which, so far as I know, Mr. Patterson never denied; and I will therefore not have anything to say about him. During the campaign there was at times very heated controversies between Messrs. Williams and Mayfleld, the principal issues between them being the record of Mr. Mayfleld as a public servant, especially as relating to the acts passed by the South Carolina general assembly known as the "Merger Act," the "Test Case Act," introduced by Mr. Mayfleld, and the "Jim Crow Car Act," together with a few side lines. In order to make myself Intelligible I will have to relate something of the history of the legislation named. The new constitution of the state, adopted in 1895, prohibited any railroad company from purchasing, leasing or operating a competing line. In 1897 to carry out that provision, the legislature passed * * - ? 1,1? A /* " frtr wnat is Known as mo j. av% .v. any violation of the constitution. Not heeding the constitution and the penalty law, the Southern Railway company purchased, consolidated or leased several lines of railway in the state that were considered competing lines, among them a line running from Charleston, S. C., to Augusta, Ga. As soon as that was done, a large number of cases were filed against the Southern to recover the statutory penalties amounting to a million or more dollars) The railroads, it seems, became uneasy, and sought a way out of the trouble. In 1902 the legislature passed what Is known as the "Merger Act," allowing the consolidation of the railroads, and valladting the purchases, consolidations and leases that had been made. That did not stop the filing of suits for the violation of the constitution. In 1904 Mr. Mayfleld Introduced in the senate, of which he was a member, the "Test Case Act," which was to settle * * - ??r\t that apt. (116 UUiiMilunuuaiivj v* v..? During the campaign Mr. Mayfleld was charged with introducing the bill in the interests of the railroads. When pressed, he stated that he did not draw the bill, but that it was drawn by the attorney general of the state. The attorney general being appealed to, denied that be prepared the bill or that REPLY . MAYFLELD it was introduced at his suggestion. Beyond ali doubt, Mr. Mayfleld introduced the bill and engineered Its passage through the legislature. In addition to the denial of Mr. Mayfleld that he prepared the bill, he stated on the stump that he had not even read it when he Introduced it. It was fathered by him in its passage and was known as the "Mayfleld bill," yet on the stump he made the denials as given. Mr. Williams stated on the stump that as Mr. Mayfleld denied a bill that he had successfully carried through, and denied all responsibility in connection with it that he could only conclude under the circumstances, that it was a railroad measure, prepared by a railroad attorney and pushed through by Mr. Mayfleld as a representative of the railroads, especially as it was for the sole benefit of the railroads, stopping all suits against them. Among other things, Mr. Williams said about the matter: "If the test suit case introduced by Mr. Mayfleld, a bill that he had not read, was intended to accomplish any purpose at all, it was to stop the citizens of the state from the insert km of their Just legal road company U1 muuu^uiim, amii ? ther, to reptal all fines, penalties and remedies, so that we are left without nnv nmtection in that reSDect To ShOW where the people suffer by the merger act and consolidations of competing lines and acts of a like nature, look at the rate on sugar and soap from New York to Aiken and other nearby stations. Previous to 1898 and before the consolidations of the competing lines, the rate on sugar was 22 cents per 100 pounds. Since then or since 1899, the rate between the same points is 48 cents. Soap under the same facts has gone up from 28 to 48 cents. There is where the people are suffering, and that is what the railroads wanted and with the aid of Mr. Mayfleld they got it." The Jim Crow Car Act. Mr. Williams charged Mr. Mayfleld at Beaufort with having voted against the "Jim Crow Car Bill" on Its second reading when his vote was most needed, and when the life or death of a bill Is at stake, the vote standing 19 to 18 in favor of the bill, and he claimed that if one more senator had changed as Mr. Mayfield had done, the bill would have been lost and negroes would be riding with the white people in railroad cars. In answer Mr. Mayfield said that he would reply to that charge at Hampton. The News and Courier of Aug. 4, in reporting Mr. Mayfleld's speech, says: "In answer to Mr. Williams' declaration at Beaufort that he had voted against the "Jim Crow Car Bill," in 1898, Mr. Mayfield produced the records showing that his vote on the matter had been recorded on the right side. His opponent must know that such statements were false and unsupported by the records. The accusations made against him on other things which he did not have time to discuss or answer, were as false and baseless as the accusation as to his vote on the "Jim Crow Car Bill." It is well to remember that statement and couple it with what follows. At the Hampton meeting Mr. Williams also produced the record, the Senate journal of 189S, page 282, which shows that Mr. Mayfield voted against the bill, as charged by Mr. Williams, notwithstanding that he had denied it, but now admits it, saying it must be a mistake in the entry. At Barnwell Mr. Mayfield read a paper admitting that his name, as charged by Mr. Williams, appeared as voting "nay" on the second reading of the bill, but that that must be an error in the entry. In his manifesto in a recent issue of The Chronicle after ample proof bad been produced to settle the matter definitely, and after the Caughman letter had been time and again read from the stump, he again reiterates that there must be some mistake, but never Drov ing it. I produce the letter of Mr. Caughman to prove that there was no error in the record, which reads as follows: "Columbia, S. C., Aug. 8, 1904. "Hon. L. J. Williams. Edgefield, S. C.: "Dear Sir?I notice in the report of the Barnwell meeting, as it appears in the News and Courier that Mr. Mayfleld denies that he opposed the separate coach hill, as it was on its passage through the senate. In quoting from the senate journal, which shews how his vote, was recorded, he uses this language: 'It also shows that on the oi lue run tu pitas tne q:lli, x voiea "nay," but there muat be an error in the entry.' "Now. in the interest of truth, and that the right may prevail, I feel called upon to make my knowledge of this matter known. "At the time that this ball passed I was a member of the house of representatives and worked more actively for the passage of this bill than I ever worked in behalf of any legislative matter during my term of service. "Mr. May field gave me his positive promise that he would suppDrt the bill; and I was astounded when upon the second reading of the bill?the crucial period in. the life of death of all bills?I heard him vote 'nay.' "I was at that time in the senate chamber and was keeping tally of the vote and heard him vote nay. **T aftAraolv^a tollriul /> vim ?VA..i iV. ?, * Vb* \*fc? VWAVU W U4U1 OUVUl UiC matter, and he explained tliat he voted against It because It did not suit him In some particular. "Therefore, there could not have been an error In the record of his vote, as It appears In the senate journal, especially as the vote stood 19 to 18, thus saving the bill by a majority of one vote. Tours very respectfully, , ji?n .. - S9 .h.r^naantAVji^ had not: voted consistently or had not uniformly supjported the. Pollock and Caughznan Jim. Crow car Mil, he would withdraw from the race for congress. Mr. Williams contends that that time has arrived, and that If he does, not quit the people oufht to leave him at home. lie has not been able to show that the senate journal waa Incorrect, nor has he ever referred to or denied the truth of Mr, Caughman's letter, though Mr. Williams has frequently read, it from the stand in his presence. It. was Mr. Williams' claim all along and Is, now, that his only object in discussing a part of Mr. Mayfleld's record as a senator was to show his tendency to serve the Interests of the corporations and trusts as against tbe interests of the people, he. admitting that he was a corporation attorney representing the Atlantic Cosst Line. He has thrown no mud on his personal character, and had claimed that on public matters his record proved him to be disqualified for congress. Mr. Williams told him on the stand that he (Mayfleld) was so wedded to corporations that he was willing to forget his duty toward the preservation of his race and race decency itself as shown by his vote on the Jim Crow bill; and that in the Jim Crow matter. Mr. Mayfleld's love for corporations went to the extent of showing a desire to mix the races In railroad car3, thus enabling a negro to lawfully ride side by side with white ladles. At Edgefield, Mr. Williams told Mr. Mayfleld that he could, it seemed to him, manage to vote on both sides of all bills during their passage through the senate; and that down In Columbia the boys had a faculty of appropriately nicknaming each other, and Mr. Mayfield bore the nickname of "Slick Duck." The foregoing gives some of the main features of the debate between the men during the campaign. It is Just by such matters s.s we must judge them. We must look to the facts and not what a man choses to say of himself. The tongue is glib and the pen facile, but facts, like steel, will not bend. During the whole campaign, not one charge has been made against Mr. Williams to show that he is not in every respect more competent to represent the district than his opponents. The slight attacks that were made were signal failures and fell flat I have given certain important features of the caimpaign which present plain facts, and every man and woman who reads them will fully understand them without further comment or explanation. WM. P. CALHOUN. Shrewd Old Farmer. (From the Chicago Tribune.) "How does it happen that old Uncle Josh Berrypatch Is gettin' more Summer boarders than any of the rest of us?" "That's 'cause he advertised that his place was diff'runt frum the regular Summer resort?no home cookln' and none o' the conveniences of home. It kind 'o caught them city folka?" DURMTHEWEFK Chattanooga, Tenn., Aug. 21.?(Special.)?The progress in Southern industrial development for the week just closed, aa reported to The Tradesman, includes the following new Industries as among the most Important: Alabama. Huntsville?Rope and twine mllL Birmingham ? Quarrying company; $500,000 gas furnace company. Corona?Coal mines. Andalusia?$85,0000 light and water company. Louisville-^ Ginning and milling company. Mobile?$15,000 candy factory. Arkansas. Thornton?Electric light plant. Fayettevlllei?Spoke and handle factory. Batesville?Construction company. Pine Bluff?$80,000 cotton company. warren?juecoic ngnt plant; water works. Little Rock?$25,?00 lumber oomp&ny. Fort Smith?$25,000 sash and door factory. Florida. AjgUachlcola?Water works. Red C3ay?Grist mfiL Camilla?Electric light plant. Wayeroes?Cigar factory. Indian Territory. Wllburton?$50,000 electric light plant. Kentucky. Louisville?$50,000 land company; $5,000 filter works. Lexington?Grain elevator. Livermore?$20,000 stave and heading factory. Carlisle?Water works. Louisiana. Welsh?Hardware company. Donaldsville?$30,000 water works. Crowley?$80,000 feed mill. New Orleans?$60,000 oil and mineral company; $25,000 brick works. Mississippi. ?Greenwood?$20,000 woodworking plant (projected). Nettleton?Brick works. , Macon?Telephone system. Bay Springs?Canning factory. Vicksburg? $75,000 oil mill; $50,000 oil refinery. Meridian?Stave and heading factory. Columbus?JlO.OOp yarn and cordage mill; $25,000 plow factory. Newton?$5,000 canning factory. Picayune?$5,000 milling company. Missouri. St Joseph?$75,000 electric light plant. North Carolina. Charlotte?$10,00 cotton ginning company. Manteo?$100,000 company to establish canneries and fertilizer factories, etc. Oklahoma. Cleveland?$50,000 oil company. Geary?$52,000 water works. Oklahoma City?$10,000 lumber company; gas plant Enid?Stone works. Mountain Park?$6,000 cotton gin. Foss?Telephone system. Carnegie?Cotton gin. j uieo?uotton gin. Hlnton?Cotton gin. Lawton?Cotton gin; flouring mill. Sha\raee?Cotton gin; $500,000 oil, gas and development company; $500,000 oil, gas and mining company. Watonga?Cotton gin. Lahoma?Creamery. Hobart?Cotton gin. Davidson?$6,000 cotton grin. Guthrie?$2,500,000 coal and chemical company. Jennings?Telephone system. Fletcher?$6,000 cotton gin. Quinlan?Grain elevator. South Carolina. Blshopvllle?$35,000 building and loan company. Charleston?Development company. Elliott?Lumber company. Tennessee. KnorvWe?$10,000 medicine factory; tzuu.uuu marDie company. Coker Creek?560,000 mining company. Sharon?Cotton gin. Clinton?Iron works. Memphis?$25,000 lumber and mineral company; $5,000 land company. Ashland City?Spoke and handle factory. Bristol?$50,000 coal and coke company.