Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

B§Sr : m: Pubi.ishbd Evert Thiirsdat MoRsisa. ^Ienhv J, Jhcrpson, PROPR1ETUK. upon the uioet reasonable terms. The Street Car Nuleunca. Of all life's ttuisitncee whlcli lie About our palb throUKb life. I kuow of none, though far. tbougb nigh. With more annoyance rife Than he of namby-pamby wita. Of idiots the star. Who In his Journey always site Croesi egged in the car. What though his bools with mud are thick’ They're crossed with other bilks'. And leave their slime - for none will kick- Upon the ladies' silka The hero brave of Austerlita, Fresh from the cannon's Jar, Has not the nerve of him a LoaiU Crossiegged in the cur. f street* '>* dusty, and ids lends With dust are coated thick. He gels no shine from street galoots— He knows a cheaper trick; He crouses ono leg over its Near neighbor mid the Jar, And indies clean them as he site Crossiegged in the car. Look up the line, and roar in glee. At boots and shoes displayed; From sixteen down to seven you so* A varied line arrayed- A gantlet llml one runs w ho flits To t lie park or down Springtlarden In the throng w here each one sits Croaslcggod in the car. - Philadelphia Press. AN ETHICAL DISCUSSION. Dr. Alexander Criticises Dr. Boggs' Recent Baccalaureate Address Before the South Caro, lina College. [A brief explanation of the late ap- pearance of thin criticism of Dr. Boglfs’ address, and of its appearance in a county newH|iui»er, will be of some interest to those wlioare interesteil i.i tiie criticism itself. “Why," it will naturally be asked,” does the criticism not H|)[>ear in If'/ir Mate ami in The New.i and Courier, the paperw tlia* imhlislied the address criticised ? The answer is that these papers have refused to publish my reply to Dr. Boggs. The State refused to print it unless I would pay for the printing. This 1 declined to do. I felt that those papers that had published Dr. Boggs’ address with great applause were hound by fairness and justice to give a hearing to one who came for ward to convict that addressof anuiu- of errors and misrepresentations. The State, especially, I had been led to be lieve had come into existence as the organ of lair play and free discussion. The JVeirx and Courier lias had my article for six weeks, and it lias been i upossible for me to get it back. I have written repeatedly requesting and ordering the artiele to he return ed to me at my own expense, but not a word of rejily have 1 ever received. My article lias not been returned and no explanation lias been given of such questionable conduct. 1 have had to re-write it, as I kept no copy of it. In doing so I have tried to reproduce the original article as exactly as I could after an interval of two months during which I have been absortied in other matters. It remains for a county newspaper, one that did not publish Dr. Boggs’ address, and, therefore, was under no obligation to print my reply, to exer cise that liberality in which our two leading dailies have shown themselves to be wanting Bet me add that, in order to lie jye ' ft etly just to 1 )r.Boggs,I le rained from criticising him until 1 iiad written him and asked for a full copy of his un dress. He 1ms endorsed the newspa- I>er rejsirt of that address by replying tliat it had so fairly and fully given his meaning that if was not necessaiy to -end me a copy of the original. W. J. Alexander.] In his recent address to the graduating class of the South Carolina College, Dr. Boggs se lected for his theme “The Doc trine of Intuitional Ethics Considered with Reference to Re cent Opponents.” These oppo nents are, as we gather from the address, Stuart Mill, Her bert Spencer and David Hume. These men deserve the most searching criticism. They have clearly and feanessly expressed their views on the most impor tant problems of human life, and in doing so have run count- **» iMngton $m. !;$”£ ! quality cannot be explained in any proper sense of taut term. The faculty by which we come I by such knowledge is likewise tPL-nxia original and unique. Itspecu'- TEKM8—fl Per Annum in Advance: ,i:_„„ti v 50 cents for 0 niontlui; 85 cent* for functlon »»t° directlj months. moral quality or conduct, Advertising Rates: and this direct seeimj is what One Square lirst insertion |t.oo | we mean by intuition. Hence One Square seeond insertion 5o, the name of the school. This Every suiisequont Insertion.... f {M 'ultv has been variously nam- Coutract advertisement. Inerted! ed-Gt nscience.ReguUtive Fac- ! ulty, Reason (as opposed to the Understanding), &c. But by i whatever name called, it is re- jgardedas a peculiar faculty, yielding as its peculiar products those ultimate truthi in morals which are not gathered from ex perience by way of inference, but which are ultimate and or- iginal.” This is, in brief, the creed of the Intuitionists. The opposing school answers: “These supposed intuitions are not intuitions at all, but are in ferences ; inferences so early and so rapidly made as to be easily mistaken for intutions, but which have been shown by modern psychological analysis to be derived, not original; in ferred, not intuitive, truths. It declares that we can give an ac count of our knowledge of mor al quality. It affirms that that which makes conduct right is its tendency to promote human welfare, and that that wh.ch makes it wrong is the reverse tendency ; and that this tenden cy of conduct which make a it right or wrong is also the criterion by which we know it to be right or wrong. Our knowledge of moral quality, therefore, is not ultimate and original. It can be analyzed in to simpler elements, and has been so analyzed. And the fac ulty by which we discern sever al qualities has likewise been analyzed. Hence this school is frequently called the Analytical School of Ethics. And because it holds that by observing the tendency of conduct inductions are established as to their moral quality, it is also called the In ductive School. Again, be cause it sets up the general hap piness of mankind, or general utility, as the test, or criterion, by which we judge the moral quality of conduct, it is also, and generally, called the Utili tarian School.” It is not my purpose to criti cise either school. I am con cerned more with Dr. Boggs’ mistakes than with his opinions. I simply remark that the ten dency of modern psychological research based on a wider and more thorough study of the mental phenomena of primitive as well as of civilized man, of the infant as well as of the adult mind, is towards the un dermining of the intuitive theo ry of morals. Many things once regarded as simple have, ny im proved analytical methods, been shown to be compound. Water is a familiar example. Until recently it was the universal opinion that it was a simple substance, but by the progress of chemical analysis it has been shown to consist of two consti tuents so utterly unlike the compound which they form as to have almost no property whatever in common with it. In the same way analytical psy chology has shown that many mental faculties and products once regarded as simple and ori ginal have been shown to be derived and compound. One after another of these so called intuitions has yielded to the an alytical method, and it is only a question of time with the rest. The evidence for Utilitarianism, like that for Evolution, is cum ulative; its foundations are broadened and strengthened er to the deepest prejudices and with the progress of knowl- most cherished convictions of the masses of mankind. They have given no quarter, and they have asked none. They have desired and have welcomed all fair, sober criticism of their works. Such criticism was to be ex pected of a chancellor of one university addressing the stu dents of another. But in the address before us we fail to find it. The jokes cracked at the expense of these opponents are edge. Dr. Boggs champions the In tuitive School, but he seems to have expected to accomplish by his authority and his jokes what can be legitimately effected on ly by rational criticism. I am not objecting to jokes : when clinching an argument other wise good, or relieving the tedium of elaborate discussion, they are to be commended. Nei ther is there any objection to high sounding phrases when reported to have been numerous they exhibit lofty thought; and amusing, but the criticism but in philosophical discussion, is both superficial and unfair; jejune cur/uty is altogether out and there are some serious mis-1 of place. It will be my un representations, (unintentional, pleasant duty to call attention of course,) which it would be | to some utterances in his ad- wrong to allow to go unchal lenged. Moreover, the patron izing tone adopted towards these giants in the world of thought will be regarded by many as in very bad taste, anil even as bordering on imperti nence. But I am concerned, not with matters of taste, but with matters of fact, and to these I now address myself. There are two leading schools of Ethics, and the question on which they differ is rather theoretical than practical. They do not differ on the ques tion as to what conduct is right and what conduct is wrong: on this intensely practical ques tion they are agreed. But when the theoretical question is raised, “How do we know certain conduct to be right and Utilitarianism holds it ? other conduct to be wrong?”, we | if be does not mean this, have two opposing answers, does he mean? giving rise to two opposing! Again, he says : “The moral schools of Ethics. quality is the essence of the One school answers: “We: crime. Our criminal code is can give no account of our one gigantic fraud and unspeak- knowledge of the distinction be- J a ble folly and fie from end to tween right and. wrong. The en d unless this be true.” Of knowledge of moral quality is course, but whoeverdenied it to simple and ultimate. Being be true ? Again I ask whether simple, it cannot be resolved Dr. Boggs means to imply that being ultimate, it cannot be de Utilitarianism denies that “the rivefj and as scientific expiana | moral <iuality is the essence of in analyzing a the crime”? Why this chal et into its simple elements, or j leuging tone when there is no ■ulte.ior and oppo&ent? Why this magnile* dress that have much more sound than sense. After laying dowm the propo sition that the moral quality of conduct is discerned by a pe culiar operation of the intellect, Dr. Boggs proceeds to say, with considerable emphasis, that the intellect, does not create, but only discovers, that quality. “The intellect, I say, discovers the moral quality in human conduct. It does not create it.” “If, as some hold, the intellect creates the quality,” &c. Will Dr. Boggs be so good as to in form us who holds that the in tellect “creates” the moral quality of conduct ? Does he moan to imply that either Mill, or Spencer, or Hume hold this ? Does he mean to implv that * And what (juent rhetorical flourish to af firm what nobody ever deuied ? The declaration that "the moral quality is the essence of the crime,” is an identical proposi tion. It is the tritestof truisms, and yet it is ushered in with glittering sword and flying banners as if there wore some enemy to be vanquished. Again : “Whatever may and whateve r may not be true of the world to come, it is abso lutely true that moral quality is a reality, the greatest of all realities in this world.” What does Dr. Boggs mean here by “reality”? He surely does not mean that moral quality is a “reality” in the sense of having a separate, independent exis tence ! That would be a return to the old error of Realism, and I take it that Dr. Boggs is no adherent of that exploded dog ma. A quality, even a moral quality, cannot be an entity, as Dr. Boggs very well knows. What then does that impressive and emphatic utterance mean? The Doctor will himself confess, I think, on reflection, that it means nothing whatever, and can mean nothing whatever, ex cept this, “that some conduct is right and some conduct is wrong.” But did anybody out of the lunatic asylum ever deny this ? Does Dr. Boggs mean to charge Mill, Spencer, or Hume with denying it ? Doeshemean to charge Utilitarianism with denying that moral quality is a reality in the only sense in which there is any sense what ever in the expression ? And if this is not his meaning, why this challenging of the wind— this flourish of trumpets and clangor of arms and defiant at titude when there is no foe in the field? To such stale, flat truisms then are these high sounding phrases reduced by simply ask ing what they mean—a very im portant question to ask when ever one hears a philosopher in dulging in resounding periods. In so reducing these phrases, I have merely followed the ad vice of Samuel Bailey in those memorable words: “If the student of philosophy would al ways, or at least, in cases of importance, adopt the rule of throwing the abstract language in which it is so frequently couched into a concrete form, he would find it a powerful aid in dealing with the obscurities and perplexities of metaphysical speculation. He would then see clearly the character of the immense mass of nothings which constitute what poses for philosophy.” I pass over Dr. Boggs’ com parison of Mill to the Devil tempting Christ. I pass over also the remark that certain of Mills’ writings contain only a grain of wheat to a peck of chaff—a remark that could nev er have been made by any ser ious student of Mill, and that comes with a bad grace from the author of this address. 1 pause for a moment, however, to see the Doctor pat Mill on the shoulder, and hear him say “Well done for you, Mr. Mill; * * * * But to con vince the human race as a whole, and especially the mas- es, who are unaffected by what Lord Bacon terms Idola Specus —to do this is a Herculean task, which if you will pardon our plainness, will prove a little too much even for your line pro cess.” And if Dr. Boggs will “par don our plainness”, we will say to him that this smacks too strongly of the philosophical demagogue. No one knew bet ter than Mill the Herculean na ture of the task which he under took. He knew full well that theological and philosophical E rejudice centuries old stood in is way. He knew that the clergy as a body, from whom “the masses” have generally tai-en their opinions, were wed ded to these prejudices, and would fight to the last ditch every attempt to destroy them. And he knew that so long as good men, standing forth as the priests of God, should continue to denounce certain views as dangerous to religion and mor ality, they could frighten “the masses” into rejecting them. Imagine some Doctor of Divin ity and University Chancellor, arrayed in robes of science, ad dressing Copernicus or Galileo as Dr. Boggs addresses Mill: “Well done, Galileo; but to con vince the human race as a whole, and especially the mass es, &c., is a Herculean task, which, if you will pardon our plainness, will prove a little too much even for your fine pro cess.” Before “the masses” this sarcastic Doctor would have had everything his own way. “If the earth revolves on its axes,” he would say, “could not ‘the masses’ know it as well as the philosopher? Could they not see it and feel it? It is in the teeth of universal experience and of all common sense. It flatly contradicts the scrip tures”, &c., &c. Nevertheless, Galileo was right, and “the masses” were wron^. And what our Doctor of Divinity and Uni versity Chancellor could have done with “the masses” for Astronomy two centuries ago, he could have done with geology a generation ago, and is even now doing for Evolution and for Ethics. And this bings us to Dr.Boggs’ views on Evolution. Discuss ing the views of Herbert Spen cer he rema-ks: “Whatever may be said oi biological evolu tion no exposit ion of psychologi cal evolution aas yet appeared which has not been shown to be a conspicuous failure. They have always had yawning abys ses which their engineers could 1 may violate all the laws of not cross.” 1 take it that Dr. health and expose myself to ev- Boggs admits biological evolu- ery danger; I shall not die till tion and denies psychological the hour appointed by Fate. There's Nothing Cheap About It. Dr. Drummond’s Lightning Remedy for Rheumatism is put up in large bottles, and the evolution. This inference is, I This is absolute Fatalism—the price is five dollars a bottle. Itj 1 thmk, warranted by the above sort of Fatalism of which Dr. ! oure8 every time. All the passage. I have only to say Boggs is speaking, and which he c leap remedies put together are that this is one of the most ab-,charges Mr. Spencer with hold-!not w<irt b one bottie of Dr. surd theories that has ever been ing. But this doctrine, so far Drummond’s Lightning Reme- put forth in the name of science from explaining the facts of fife, | dy, and any sufferer will bear Biological evolution inevitably contradicts them. witness to that fact, anti any carries psycological evolution Determinism gives a very druggist who has sold it is rea- along with it. All the evidence I different answer. It declares dy and willing tooffei evidence, for biological evolution is just i o that human volitions are no | One bottle will cure any ordina- much evidence for pychological more exempt from the law of ry case, and the money wifi be causation than other pheno- returned if it fails. Sent to any mena, and so repudiates the | address prepaid on receipt of doctrine of Free-will; but it price. Drummond Medicine, holds that man can do a great Co., 48-50 Maiden Lane, New deal towards changing the! York. Agents wanted. course of events, and so it repu- w — ! diates fatalism. Human vo-1 The small daughter of a well: known Boston physician went T ill to visit her grandmother in the ' J^FCOSIl SuGCK, country recently, and being ^ to*vn born and bred the singing Edwards. Norment & Co -OUR- -ARE- evolution apd there is addition al evidence besides. Try to en visage the situation. With the data before you, try to conceive the body with its nervous sys tem, the immediate organ of mind, as growing more and more complicated, more and more differentiated and inte grated in all its parts until it evolves into a human body, and then believe, if you can, that the mind all this while was not being developed pur ipa.ssw with the body. The mere statement of the absurdity is its refutation. This hybrid theory will soon be regarded as one of those mon strosities born of a transition pe- irod when men are trying to patch together the worn-out er rors of a decaying theology with the new truths of a growing science. Only a little while ago, and the great body of the clergy rejected biological evolution as uuscriptural and without evi dence. And now that biological evolution has fought its way to victory and established itself as an iucontrovertable fact of sci ence, some of the clergy and their followers are saying the same thing against psychologi cal evolution that were only yesterday said against biologi cal evolution. The two stand or fall together, and he who re jects both occupies a much more consistent and rational position than he who admits one and denies the other. I cannot follow Dr. Boggs in to that vast“continentof mud,” the region of free-will, fore knowledge, etc. There is hard ly any sphere of thought in which so much has been said to so little purpose: in which one may seem to be profound when he is only confused. I am con cerned chiefly with the Doctor’s mistakes and he makes one of them on the very threshold of his subject. He is reported as charging Mr. Spencer withhold ing that “men’s conduct is ab solutely determined by their en vironment.” Has Dr. Boggs ever read Mr. Spencer’s works, or is he merely taking at second h ind some lilunderer’s caricature of Mr. Spencer? No one has appreciated more highly than Mr. Spencer has done the in ttuence of heredity on character and on conduct, and no one has proclaimed more clearly the fact that one’s character is large ly formed for him and trans mitted to him by his ancestry. But character is the very anti thesis of environment. After misrepresenting Mr. Spencer on this point, he pro ceeds to misrepresent him on another. After charging him wUR holding that “men’s con duct is absolutely determined by their environment” he pro ceeds to charge him, by clear implication, with holding the doctrine of absolute Fatalism. “And so he (Spencer) concludes the free choice of men is ab solutely determined by their en vironments. Which is deter minism pure and simple; or if you like it better, fatalism ab solute. Fatalism, men’s con duct absolutely determined by their environment, etc”. This passage betrays great confusion of thought. One who could define Fatalism as the doctrine that “men’s conduct is absolutely determined by their environments” or who could indentify Determinism with ab solute Fatalism, has thought on these matters to very little pur pose. Determinism and Fatal ism are very different. They are both opposed to the doctrine Free-Will (in the techincal sense of that term), but they are op posed to it in diametrically oppo site ways. Free-will would ex empt human volitions from the law of causation—a law that confessedly reigns over every other field of the known uni verse. It would make the mind, in willing, absolutely begin a new chain of events. In other words it denies that those changes called volitions are caused by other changes, and these by preceding changes, and so on; and affirms that the mind in willing, is self-moved, or self caused, which is the same as to say that it is not caused at all. That is tanta mount to exempting this class of mental phenomena from the dominion of a law—the law of causation—t hat governs all other phenomena. It is evident, without comment, that the pre sumption against such a doc trine is simply enormous It is utterly unscientific, and is out of harmony with the facts of fife. To the doctrine of Free-will (in the sense explained) Fatal ism replies that so far from the human wifi 1 e .ng able to initiate a course of events in the way above indicated, it has no con trol whatever over events. The course of events is fixed by some power above man and it will take place without regard to and in spite of anything that man t an do. The day of my death, for example, has been fixed by Fate, and nothing that I can do will either hasten or postpone that event. I may be prudent and avoid vice and ex posure to danger. In vain; I cannot lengthen my life beyond the hour fixed by Fate. Or I NOW OPEN l litions are caused, aredetermin- known Boston physician ed, just as all other events are caused or determined ; this it affirms against Free-will. Hu man volitions can modify and change and in some cases re verse the course of events ; this it affirms against Fatalisnr. Determinism is a sober, scienti fic induction from the facts of fife and is in perfect accord with all those facts. It knows noth ing whatever of the so-called decisions of Fate and pays no regard to them. It holds that one’s volitions and consequent conduct will have a great deal more to do with deciding the da’ of his death than Fate can have ; that if one, for instance, takes a dose of poison be will die in spite of Fate, Predestina tion, Foreknowledge and all those other high sounding ab stractions, about which, say what we may, we are so pro foundly ignorant. Determin ism and Fatalism, therefore, are as opposed as day and night, as science and fanatacism : and for Dr. Boggs to declare them to be identical, and to charge Spencer and Mill, who are de- terminists, with being abso lute fatalists is to speak with a recklessness and want of dis crimination unworthy of his position as a teacher of philoso phy. Even if determinism held (which it does not) that “men’s conduct is abso'utely determined by their environ ment” it wonld not be Fatal ism, tho’ that is Dr. Boggs’ definition of Fatalism. For Determinism recognizes the fact that we can alter one’s environ ments and so alter his conduct. We can put a gallows in the environment of the murderer ; > penitentiary in the environment of the thief and thus contribute much towards determining their conduct. Fatalism is an oriental fiction; Free-will is a psychological illu sion ; Determinism is a scientific induction. But I must close this criticism already too long. In exposing the jejuneness, the confusion and the misrepresentations of “this magnificent address which ought to go down as a valuable contribution to the thought of the day on philosophical knowl edge,” I have simply tried to do something to aid the cause of true philosophy in our State, by shielding from misrepresenta tion those great benefactors of their race, Hume, Mill and Spencer. There is a vulgar and ignorant prejudice against these great and good men on which a popular orator can al ways count if he is willing to “stoop to conquer.” It is grati fying, however, to see that quite a number of our more in telligent ministers are begining to appreciate these thinkers at their real worth and to com mend them to our educated young men. If Dr. Boggs, by his criticism of them, and I, by this defence, should be the oc casion of leading our educated youth to study for themselves the works of thesegreatseminal minds, we shall both have ren dered them an invaluable ser vice. W. J. Alexander. of the birds was a new sensa tion for her. “What is that noise?” she inquired. '‘Birds singing,” replied her grand mother. “That is a golden rob in.” The next day the midget informed her mamma she would like to hear that brass hen again. —Boston Herald. Come Bucklan’a Arnica Salve. The Best Salve in the world for Cuts, Bruises, Sores. Ulcers, Salt Rheum, Fever Sores, Tetter, Chapped Hands, Chilblains, Corns, and all Skin Eruptions, and positively cures Piles, or no pay required. It is guaranteed to give perfect satisfaction, or money refunded. Price 25 cents per box. For sale at Willcox & Co’s drugstore. “You say,” said the stern father, as he motioned the young man to be seated, “that you want to marry my daugh ter. She tells me that you have saved up a little sum. But, sir, what can you do to assure me of your future prospects ?” •‘You are evidently not aware, sir,” replied the young man, a blush of pride mounting to his fair young face, “that I have just started a factory for the manufacture of women’s sus penders.”—Cloak Review. Accident* make* Cripple*. So does Rheumatism, and af ter a time it kills, too! Dr. Drummond’s Lightning Remedy relieves the pain at once, and is warranted to cure. One bottle, price five dollars, is enough for any ordinary case. If you can not get it from your druguist, write to the Drummond Medi cine Co., 48-50 Maiden Lane, New York. Agents wanted. “We keep step perfectly,” murmured Wadsleigh in the promenade. “Yes,” with a sigh. “Well, my darling—may I call you SO ?—I want to ask you intelligent persons are familiar to walk with me through life.” wit * 1 tiie that body u in a per- “Thank you, but I’ve already ! £ >tn> l at f^ of "T u * tio f <“'d eiimma- accepted an invitation to ride.” vtoc ^ m SunS otl^V^ healthy and normal physical condition. P 1 Pi Clara—When George and I are married I’m am to have my own way in everything. Dora—Guess you won’t. Clara—Indeed I will. That’s the bargain. Don’t you remem ber I told you he proposed to me in a rowboat, and asked if I’d float through fife with him just that way ? “Yes.” “Well, he was rowing, but I was steering.”—New York Weekly. Shiloh’* Consumption Cure. This is beyond question the most successful Cough Medi cine we have ever sold, a few doses invariably cure the worst cases of Cough. Croup and Bron chitis, while its wonderful sue cess in the cure of Consumption is without a parallel in the his tory of medicine. Since its first discovery it has been sold on a guarantee, a test which noother medicine can stand. If you have a cough we earnestly ask you to try it. Price 10c., 50c. and $1. If your lungs are sore, chest, o ' back lame,useShiloh’s Porous Plaster. Sold by Dr. J. A. Boyd Best goods, loY/est prices! to Headquarters. Respectfully, It Should Be in Every House. J. B. Wilson, 371 Clay St., I Sharpsburg, Pa., says he will not he without Dr. King’s New Discovery for Consumption, boughs and Colds, that it cured his wife who was threatened with Pneumonia after an at tack of “La Grippe,” when var ious other remedies and several physicians had done her no good. Robert Barber, of Cooksport, Pa., claims Dr. King’s New Dis covery has done him more good than anything he ever used for Lung Trouble. Nothing like it. Try it. Free Trial Bottles at Willcox & Co’s drug store. Large bottles, 50c. and $1 00. Tourist—And you say the passage by rail is forty-five dol lars and by water thirty dollars? Ticket Agent—But the latter doesn’t include meals. Tourist—Never mind that ; give me a ticket by water ; I’ll save just fifteen dollars.— Brooklyn Life. electric Bitters. This remedy is becoming so well known and so popular as to need no special mention. All who have used Electric Bitters sing the same song of praise.— A purer medicine does not exist a id it is guaranteed to do all that is claimed. Electric Bitters will cure all diseases of the Liv er and Kidneys, will remove Pimples. Boils, Salt Rheum and other affections caused by im pure blood.—Will drive Malaria from the system and prevent as well as cure all Malarial fevers. —For cure of Headache, Con stipation and Indigestion try Electric Bitters—Entire satis faction guaranteed, or money refunded.—Price 50 cts. and $1.00 per bottle at IFillcox & Go’s Drugstore. “Why, hello, old man! I thought you intended to make your European trip lastayear.” “I did, but my wife found a new fashion in gowns in Paris and hurried home to be the first to wear it.”—Indianapolis Journal. Answer This Question. Why do so many people we 8 >e around us seem to prefer to suffer and be made miserable by Indigestion, Constipation, Dizziness, Loss of Appetite, Coming up of the Food, Yellow Skin, when for 75c. we will sell them Shiloh’s Vitalizer, guar anteed to cure them. Sold by Dr. J. A. Boyd. She—Well, if I can’t five on my income and you can’t five on yours, where would be the advantage in our marrying i He (thoughtfully)—Well, by putting our incomes together one of us would be able to five at any rate.—Life. SHILOH’S CATARRH REM EDY. A marvelous cure for Catarrh, Diphtheria, Canker mouth, and Headache. With each bottle there is an ingenious nasal Injector for the more suc cessful treatment of these com- laints without extra charge, rice 50c. Sold by Dr. J. A. Boyd. Edwards, Norment & Company. DON'T MIND THE CROWD. Go Straight to the Store €. N. OATS. of You will be waited on thoroughly there. WE KEEP A FULL LINE OF GROCERIES, CANNED GOODS, CROCKERY WARE, ETC., ETC. R. I*. BLACKMON, Manager. FHLL, ’92. 02 03 CT3 - IMMENSE Stock Qt/Jy SUCCESS in l * ie P ast has induced us for the present season to lay in a particularly attractive stock in the Dry Goods Department, con- # # # sisting in part of Dress Goods, fancy and plain, to suit every taste, with Trimmings to match. ::::::::: Also an of Staple Dry Goods of which we make a specialty of giving low prices by the bolt. Our stock of Clothing, Shoes w w m w an d Hats is new, embracing all « the latest styles and patterns. S We also carry a complete line of Hardware, Crockery and Tin. *<3 WE Kh'FP at a ‘* Hmes a large and well-se- g lected stock of Heavy and Fan- -—3 _ cy Groceries at wholesale and a- • • • • * cs retail. c=> We want your traie and shall try to merit it. Respectfully, CO LDI & This space is re served for JOYE & Sim, Who are now opening their fall and winter stock. t * -i » *■ #!.•*■ "A \ : . v.*.- MiiY SCE these CELEBRATED PIANO* before purchasing elsewhere. s c i AMDs t) Manufactured by V JEW E.NOLAXU PIANO 00., Ki it BOSTON, MAOB. j Piooucm* Plano Factor-lot THE KILLOUGH MUSIC CO., IN 'HE WORLD. FLORENCE, S. C. i . Oeneral Representatives. OTTUl PIANOS. BEHR BROS., IVERS & POND, S t’Ev'il A.LXXES: M ORGANS. ESTEY, .bfh6 NEW ENGLAND. BXJSIlSrE 3 3 Buy direct. Sell direct. One approval. Assume all freights FERRAND & VOTEY, none. KIMBALL. IRTTLES: price. Lowest price. Ship on Have satisfied customers or -Chicago Newt-Record. The above rules are fully enforced by the only chartered Music Company in the State They sell all kinds of Musical Merchan disc, including music books, sheet music musical instruments. They want to prices ^ree. They are and all kinds of small send yon catalogues and The Killough Music Company ELoxtEisraE, s. a.