Newspaper Page Text
?OMTKR WATCHMAN, BMW
ocwl Mated Aug. 8,188
PCbe (fiftatt'nnait an!) jJjutbrcn.
Pebftahod Wednesday and Saturday
NTEEN PUBLISHING COMPANY
8UMTER, & a
? 1.10 per annum?In advance.
One Squar* first Inosrtlon.$1.00
Contracts for three months, or
will be made at reduced rates.
All communications which sub
private interests will he charged
Lfe* ae advertisements.
^ Oeetearlae and tributes of respects
?real he charred tor.
BUEPORT ON COTTON STOCK*.
hs America August SI, Number
Waehington. Sept. 13.?The total
eweaber of bale* of coton held on An?
lest tl In the United States wee 1.
Itt.tll as against 1.11?.058 In 1108.
a soar ding to a report by the census
m today, end 1.114.587 in 1807.
quantity of cotton held In the
-growing State? od August 81
tos* was 702.?88 and In all other
bOate? ?18.934. The quantity consum?
ed during the year was 5.985,2a*
bates against 4.518.090 In 1808. The
I eweaber of active spin die? In opera
* Uon during the year was 17.788.491.
The total number of active spindles
hs operation In the United States dur?
ing; the yeer 1989 is compared with
91.108.411 in 1808 and 98.976.181 in
1907. The total number of active
k st>4nelea In operation In the "cotton
A grwwlng States" during the year 1808
woo 19.87X.87i compared with 10.
200,908 In 1808 and 8.887.884 In 1907.
To* total number of active spindles
tat operation In "all other States" dur?
ing the year 1909 was 17.408.519.
compared with 17.304.519 in 1908 and
kl8.t47.897 lu 1987.
Of the total nummber of bales of
I cotton held on* August 91 last. 308.
? 889 was held by manufacturers
m against 884.184 In 1808 and 1.018.718
'- The number of balee held
JUpsat ?y al other holders
841.874 ha l&M
end 497.829 In 1997.
The quantity of cotton held in the
"cotton-growing States" on August 31
Ust la compared with 887.801 in 1903
and 815.85? in 1907 and "in all ether
1 th* comparison Is again???
> lslt.998 in 1908 and 888.501 In 1907.
The quant *.y of cotton consumed
(bales) in the cotton-growing States
daring the year 1909 was 2,488.919
against 2.187.099 In 1908 and 2.410.
992 in 1907. The total quantity of
cotton of cotton consumed (bales)
. daring the year 1909 In "all other
?tat??" was 2.599.481 against 2.251.
894 In 1908 and 2.579.842 In 1907.
The totals Include 12.459 bales of
foreign cotton In 1904, 7.S16 In 1908.
8.its in 1907. consumed by manufac?
turers in the cotton-growing States
and 125.884 against 141.912 In 1908.
^ 181.798 In 1907. consumed by manu
faoturer? in all other States. The sta?
tistics of other domestic and foreign
cotton are In running bales gross
WEXT i OTTOW REPORT.
Wat-hlngtoR, Sept. 84.?The nest re?
port of the census on the quantity of
cotton ginned, which was to have
Icon issued <>n Saturday, October t.
will not he made public until 10 a.
> m.. on October 4 next, telegraphic
notice to that effect having today
been a*?nt out by Director Durand.
The law requires that the report of
rhe bureau of statistics of the depart?
ment of agriculture on the cotton
must be made public on the same day
ae the census report.
"It Is Impossible for the bureau Of
statistic* to prepare Its report before
18 o'clock on the day of Issue." ex?
plained Mr. Durand, "and ae the ma?
jority of the cotton exchanges clone at
18 o'clock on Sattirday. It would be
impossible to take advantage of the
Information. Therefore both reports
will be Issued on Monday. October 4,
the report of the bureau of statistics
appearing at noon, as heretofore.''
Ml KDKU AND St K IDF.
Oreenville, Sept. 24.?One of the
most horrible domestic tragedies that
has taken place near Greenville In a
number of years occurred at Wood
?Id? village this morning when <;. W.
Oallaway. a mill employe, shut and
Instantly killed his wife, and then
blew hla brains out with the same
? capon, a double-barreled breech
loading shotgun. The crime was BOSS
mitted about 5 o'clock, nd there
were no witnesses, save two small
children, who can not give a coher?
ent account Ol the terrible happen
shed April, ISM.
'Be Just an
judge mmm chaise,
THE LAW AS CONSTRUED IN FAR*
Tlicre is Apparently a Fine Lega1 Dis?
tinction I let ween Ilrlbery ami Pay?
ing; a Commission for Business Cor
mpily end Dishonestly Awarded by
A Purchasable Official.
The following is the charge of
Judge R. W. Mrmmlnger in the Far
'"The Court: Now, Mr. Foreman
and Gentlemen of the Jury, upon tha
law of this case, as to which alone It
Is my duty to charge you pursuant to
that provision of our Constitution,
which directs that Judges shall net
:harge juries in respect to matters of
fact, but shall declare the law, I shall
"It appears to me to be very simple
now that It has all been threshed over
and argued by the learned counsel on
behalf of the State and defendant, and
I myself, in the meanwhile during the
heavy stress and strain of this pro?
tracted trat, notwithstanding, have
had some opportunity of eliminating
the superfluities and getting down to
direct your attention to that which Is
"Now, I ask your attention, gentle?
men, strictly to the matters which I
I shall lay before you. I have brought
it down to the shortest possible form
and tried to put It In such shape as
you can thoroughly understand it, as
I know you desire to do. You have
first to take Into consideration wheth?
er or not the State has proved the
oase beyond a reasonable doubt, of
which you are the judges, the legal
principle of a reasonable doubt; and
that Is that unless the guilt of the ac?
cused Is proved to you beyond a rea?
sonable doubt you must acquit him.
If you have a reasonable doubt upon
any material point in the case you
must solve It In favor of the defend?
ant and acquit. By reasonable doubt
!s meant a real doubt a substantial
doubt arising out of the testimony, a
doubt for which you can give a rea?
"Under the first count of the indict"
meiit the State charges that the de
uudunJ haa violated a ejection of our
Criminal Code, to-wit: Section 261,
In certain particulars set forth in de?
tail in that count, and all of which
you will have before you in your Jury
room, and they have been repeatedly
read In your hearing, and therefore it
is not necessary for me to pause here
to reiterate, but I am going to read
you the section of the Code referred
to, so that you may be fully in pos?
session of the tertny of it. Now, give
your attention to that, Section 261.
"Now. you see. gentlemen, by this
section it is made a crime, among oth?
er things to corruptly offer and
promise to make and give a gift and
gratuity to any executive officer of
the State after he has been elected
and qualified for such office with In?
tent to influence his vote, opinion, de?
cision and judgment on any matter,
question or proceeding which may be
Pentling or which may by law be
brought or come before him in his of?
ficial capacity. Now, it Is upon proof
of the specific material charges in the
indictment that the State must stand
or fall. You take each of those mater?
ial elements of the section as charged
specifically in the Indictment, and
say whether each of them has been
proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If
not. the charge falls. If so, it is le?
gally established. As, for instance,
it is alleged that the alleged offer and
promise was made by Farn urn to Wy
lle after he had been duly qualified as
a member of the board. I have al?
ready decided in this case that if you
find him to have been so duly qualified
that as a matter of law he was an
executive officer of the State, coming
?vlthln the terms of this section, but
you are the judges of the fact as to
whether or n:>t he has been proven to
have been duly qualified, and, if so,
v*,vi? ther the alleged offer and pro
mise to pay him. if proved, was made
to him by Firnum thereafter cor?
ruptly, la the sum of $i.i 2r.. with in
t nt To influence his act. vote, opin?
is decision and Judgment In favor
eeeeptenoe Of certain bids, and
SO forth, as set out as material alle?
gations of the indictment. No serious
questions of law. gentlemen. upon
wl.'ch you would need enlightenment
v\ old arise under this count of th*
The Statute Plain.
You have the charges in the indict
gtenti you have the wording of the
section of the statute, you see that the
Offer and promise must be corrupt
arid with intent to Influence, and
IhOOO woids have so plain a meaning
that all Riefl can understand them.
Whether the offer and promise was
ever consummated and whether the
d Fear not-**Let all the ends Thou Ain
t. S. C V&EDNESDA
official was influenced and whether |
the State lost anything or not are not
tat ntlal elements to be proved ex?- j
cept as to throw light upon the ques?
tion of the corruptness of the offer
and promise and intent to influence.
The section is directed at the wrong
of attempting to corruptly Influence
official action with intent to influence
unduly the action of the officer by
the promisor. I charge you, how?
ever, while upon this county and it
likewise applies to the other counts
and covers all of the propositions
upon this point submitted on behalf
of the defendant, and it bears upon
the question of corrupt offer or
promise and evil intent necessary to
constitute a violation of the law here
In question, that by Section 382 of
the Criminal Code of this State the
State recognizes that its no crime
for the seller of goods to pay what
are commonly known as rebates to
persons holding offices or postions ot
trust or profit. It makes it a crime
for any State official to accept rebates
for his individual use and not for the
benefit and on behalf of the State;
which means that while it is a crime
for the State officer to take rebates
and not turn them over to the State,
It Is not a crime for the seller of
goods in good faith to pay to the State
officer such rebates, as, for instance,
if a salesman offered a State officer
charged with the duty of buying
goods for the State his goods at the
same price as the price of all others
who bid for the sale and at the
prices of like goods elsewhere, and
at the same time in order to secure
the order offered to share his com?
mission on the sale with the State
officer as a rebate for the State If he
would buy his goods, not corruptly
to offering and intending the rebate
for the personal use of the State of- j
fleer, but in good faith only to push his
goods and earn his commission, he
not being responsible for whether or
not the State ofticer complied with
thf statute referred to requiring him
to pay such rebates to the State.
Now, I read you the section, gentle?
men, upon that point, Section 382.
(Reads section.) This section shall
not apply to officers in accepting re
bates for their own personal use, but
for the benefit and on behalf of the
State. With this statement of the
law, and as to the modification of the
ninth and tenth requests of the de?
fendant, I shall proceed. They will
not be otherwise directly charged or
refused unless I am requested to do
j so speclflcially and to qualify them
"We. pass then to the second and
j third counts of the indictment, which
j have in different forms charged the
I same offence, to wit. bribery at com?
mon law, the general definition of
which offence is:
"The corruptly offering, soliciting
or receiving of any undue reward as
a consideration for the discharge of
any public duty." And by undue re?
ward is meant any pecuniary advan?
tage, direct or indirect, beyond that
naturally attached to or growing out
of the discharge of the duty, or as
otherwise defined: 'Bribery is the
voluntary giving or receiving of any?
thing of value in corrupt payment
for an official act done or to be done.'
As it is a crime to take a bribe, it is
clearly also a crime to give one for
the offences are similar. The theory
of our government is that all public
offices are stations of trust, and that
those clothed with them are to be ac?
tuated in the discharge of their du?
ties solely by the consideration of
right and justice to the public good,
and any serious departure from the
line of rectitude in this behalf and
any corrupt tending to produce such
departure is a public wrong.
But One Offence Charged.
"Now, as to those two counts, th*
second and third, they do not charge
separate offences, but the same of?
fence with a different degree of par?
ticularity. That is, the State charges
the defendant with a greater degree
Of particularity in the third than in
the second, the object being that fail?
ing to prove the more particular al?
legations set out In the third, it may
yet prove the particular allegations
set out in the second as to constitute
the charge of bribery as common
law. So, while at this point it may
be well to state to you here and be
done with that, that while you cannot
find a verdict upon the second and
third counts separately, as you can
upon the first count as distinct from
the second and third, the rule for you
to follow would be, unless you find
that none of the counts are made out
and so find not guilty or that all of
the counts ar?? made out and so flnl
guilty generally, or find that only the
first c<?unt is made out, you would
write guilty on the first count, be?
cause you see the punishment Is dif?
ferent under the first count. And if
>ou found a general verdict of guilty
und yet meant to find guilty on all
ist at be thy Country's, Thy God's am
Y. SEPTEMBER 29,
and sentence according^. And as to I
a conviction upon the second an J
third counts, common law* brib 4?fJr
the punishment not being s*
comes under the statute whic
the punishment to the di
the Judge, not to ex^ee
with or without fine, W hfl
the punishment following ???
tion under the first count only is very
mach less. To make it plain, then,
gentlemen, with this explanation your
verdict should be either guilty, which
means guilty on the first and either
the second or third counts, which
leaves the punishment to me, not to
exceed ten years, with or without
fine, or guilty on the first count,
which means imprisonment not ex?
ceeding five years or fine not exceed?
ing three thousand dollars and im?
prisonment not exceeding one year,
or not guilty. I hope I have made
that clear to you, gentlemen. It is
difficult and I have done the best I
could to make it plain.
"Coming now to the issues present?
ed in those two counts, the second
end third, in addition to the defini?
tions generally and the general prin?
ciples I have already given you, I
have but a few considerations to ad?
vert to and I have done. First, you
will bear in mind in considering these
counts as to whether they have been
proved beyond a reasonable doubt or
not. you take the general definition
of bribery I have given you and then
take the specific allegations of these
counts in the inditcment and see if
these specific allegations are made
out, because, as I have told you, while
the definition is general the Sfate
must stand or fall by the proving or
failure to prove these specific ma?
terial allegations under the general
definition. As, for instance, the sec?
ond count alleges that the defendant
corruptly, and so forth, gave a cer?
tain sum of money to Wylie, a mem?
ber of the board, and so forth, as a
bribe and in corrupt payment for his
act, and so forth, at Columbia, in
Richland County. Now, if you rtnd
that said sum of money was not so
given, as alleged, in Columbia, that
would amount to a failure; that
would be lack of Jurisdiction of thi*
coui tf A;r?n SP'oTTfes to-the other ?ia- ]
terial allegations therein. Upon this
point defendant claimed that the ac?
tual money must be shown to have
been paid in Richland County. But
it seems to me that the weight of
\uthority holds, and I charge you,
that if the proof shows that the pay?
ment of a check, draft or other de?
vice used to cover the payment of
the actual cash, and which was ac?
tually cashed elsewhere, that would be
sufficient to maintain the allegation
as to payment in Richland County in
this part of the indictment.
"The third count, as I have stated
to you, more fully sets out the alleged
device by which it is charged the al?
leged official was corrupted. You
have all these allegations before you,
gentlemen. If either point is made
out upon every material point therein
set out, then the charge of common
law bribery charged in thot,e two
counts is made out, but the first
count is made out, the defendant is
only guilty of the statutory crime
charged thcrf.n; and if neither of the
three is made out under the rules I
have given you, he is not guilty.
"One of the essential elements of
difference between the first and tne
other two counts is that in the first an
offer and promise alone is charged,
while in the others actual payment. A
mere present to an alleged official
given without a prior corrupt prom?
ise, understanding or agreement will
not suffice to constitute common law
bribery. Where there is uch a pay?
ment it is tor the jury to say whether
or not the payment alter the act and
not before is a subterfuge to cover a
prior understanding or agreement,
and whether or not from all of the
evidence there was beyond a reason?
able doubt such prior corrupt prom?
ise, understanding or agreement, and
that the payment was corrupt and
done with tht intent to influence and
as an undue reward and corrupt
award for the discharge of a public
duty. In o4ber words the payment
must be a orrupt payment.
Testimony of an Accomplice.
"I come now, gentlemen, to the last
and only other point to which I de?
sire to draw your attention, and I do
this in compliance with the request
of counsel, not that it is strictly a
matter of law, because it has been
held and is the law that a Jury may
convict upon the uncorroborated evi?
dence of an accomplice, but it is also
held to be the proper practice for the
Judge to charge the jury when re?
quested to do ho? and a request to
which I desire never to tail to ac?
cede that the jury are advised that
it is not safe to convict a defendant
upon the testimony of an accomplice
unless It is corroborated in some ma
power to convict upon the testi
frony of an accomplice without cor
roboration; but I feel that I do right
to say to that it is even laid down in
the law books and made satutory law
In some States that it is not safe to
convict upon the testimony of an ac?
complice without corroboration. By
an accomplice is meant one who is in?
volved either directly or indirectly in
the commission of the crime. To ren?
der him such he must in some man?
ner aid or assist in the criminal act
and by that connection become equal?
ly involved in the guilt by reason of
the criminal transaction.
"Now, then, gentlemen. I feel that
I have discharged my duty here
among you as well a? within me lies
as your presiding judge I know that
I have done so impartially. This case
has been thoroughly and fairly pre?
sented to you, and you have given all
of it earnest attention.
"Not far beyond the threshold of a
judicial career, which I hope to make
my life work and thereby pass down
to my posterity, even unto the third
and fourth generation as a presid?
ing judge in South Carolina, and with
j a faith in the efficacy of trial by jury
[ as the most perfect system of admin ?
istering justice ever devised by the
human mind, and which has stood
the most crucial of all tests, the test
of times and experience, and under
which the English-speaking peoples
o* the world have arisen to the ut
^dt heights of prosperity and pow?
er, upon you as a jury of your county
of Richland, charged with the re?
sponsibility of deciding the issues of
fact, including as well the privilege
of acquitting those not proven guilty
as the sad duty of convicting those
who are so proven under the rules of
law, I cast this case. It is all for you;
r,o take the indictment and decide the
GRAFTER WINS OUT.
FARNUM ACQUITTED OF BRIB?
ERY Cl ARGE.
State Loses the First of the Dispen?
sary- Tlfefc?t-torors DiafiTTBeHeve
The Money Was Given for Corrupt
Columbia. Sept. 25.?James 8. Far
num has been acquitted of the charge
of bribing Joseph B. Wylie, when the
latter was a Slate dispensary direc?
Upon the back of the typewritten
sheets of indictment No. 53 of the
now famous "graft c^se^'" are th" fol?
lowing words: "Kol guilty. W. L.
Caughman, Foreman " To the de?
fendant these few word* spell tree
dom?relief from that use
which the trial upon so seriou; a
charge necessarily hi ought with it.
lo the world at large these .Y*>nJs]
also mean that the State has failed
in the first of the trials that have set
the country wild with expectation.
Six hours it tock the Rich land
county jury to decide that Fat-num
was not guilty. With the clear cut
words of Judge Memminger ringing
In their ears tno lurors filed one by
one from the court room shortly after
10 o'clock this morning and a little
after 4 O'ol* . k their decision was an?
nounced. 14 was a dramatic moment
in the court room. The defendant
grasped the hands of the individual
juurors and expressed his apprecia?
tion of their verdict. The news
bpreod rapidly through the cu> and
the wires commenced to flash with
brief messages of the result of the
trial. The general impression had
been that a mistrial would result.
The attorneys for the defense were
naturally very much gratified at the
result of the trial. Mr. Cochran stat?
ed tonight that the verdict was ex?
pected under the testimony and that
the attorneys for the deefnse did not
think that any other verdict could
have been rendered under the cir?
Col. Nelson, immediately after the
jury's decision was announced, made
the laconic reply to a question as to
what he thought about ;t: "All
right," and his expression showed his
The defendant had a brilliant array
of counsel. Mr. Ernest F. Cochran
conducted the war against the indict?
ment and other technical features o
the case with much skill. Mr. P. H
Nelson, of this city, was strong on
the cross-examination of witnesses
Mr. Ben Hagood's argument for the
defense before the jury was a fea?
ture. Attorney T. Moultrle Ifordecai.
of Charleston! while not actually tak?
ing part in the trial, was in continu?
ous consultation with his associates.
He sat next to the defendant during
the trial and gave advice at various
Attorney General Lyon, when ask
E SOUTHRON, Established June, ISM
ies?Vol. XXX. !??? 10*
ed concerning the trial shortly after
the verdict had been rendered by tho
jury, said: "I have nothing to say.
The testimony in the case speaks for
Itself." He made no definite state
ments as to the future action of tha
State other than to say that the case
against John Black, charged with ac?
cepting a bribe, would very probably
be called on Wednesday. This state?
ment was made in the court this af?
ternoon at the request of Judge Mem
minger, who had previously asked
that other cases be tried during next
week than the remaining one for
bribery against Farnum. Not talk?
ing officially, the attorney general,**
however, intimated that the first de?
feat would not affect the course ot
the State in reference to the othet
indictments in the alleged dispensary
When pressed for an official state?
ment the attorney general said: "I
have heard it rumored that the jury
declined to bring in a verdict against
the defendant because they would not
convict on the testimony of an ac?
complice. If this rule is to be fol?
lowed, it will always be a practical
Impossibility to ever convict one ot
bribery, for testimony in such cases
must necessarily come from an ac?
When the verdict had been return?
ed there was much speculation as to
how the jury stood on the case. One
of the jurymen, in speaking of ths
deliberation, said: "We went to the
room at 10:15 o'clock this morning.
All of us were deeply interested in
the trial and the testimony, and it
was my observation that every man
in the room was a serious thinking
man, who knew his responsibility and
intended to do his duty as he saw It.
When we were all in the room and
had time to learn the opinion of each
as to what verdict should be render?
ed, it developed that eleven were for
acquittal and one for conviction. For
five long hours we argued with ihie
man. We believed that money had
been paid, and eleven of us were con?
vinced that it was merely given as a
rebate in the regular course of buti--t
ness, and there was no evidence, *s||
we understood It, that would, tend. 10^
make one believe that the*jnW>s^eJgejanar
Rlverf"* for corrupt purposes. *s Wlfe?;
the one juror, who was for convic?
tion, had heard several of the jurors
explain their views on the testimony
offered, he came around to our side.
A vote was then taken, and all of us
voted for the acquittal of Mr. Far?
num. We didn't believe that the tes
timo v of the alleged accomplices of
Mr. Farnum had been corroborated
bv the testimony of others."
CLEMSOX "I I ATS" IIX-TREATED?
Their IiOt Said to be Worse Than
That- of ?*Xeeroes on the Chain
St. Matthew's. Sept. 23.?The edi?
torial columns of the Calhoun Ad?
vance are lurid this week over the
treatment meted out to the "rats" at
Clemson. alleging that "the boys are
ill treated, often worse tran the ne?
groes on the chaingang. Whipped,
kicked and cuffed at will." it urges
that the authorities lay a heavy hand
on these desperadoes, and see that the
new boys get some decent show of re?
Among many other things of simi?
lar import it quotes from the students
who returned home in disgust as fol?
'They were not permitted to eal
anything of any consequence, the oth?
er students saying that the rats
should not eat, throwing milk and
coffee and emptying the leavings
from their meals in the food of the
rats, blinding, which consists of slap?
ping the rats in the face as they paws
them, put across boxes, trunks, etc.,
and severely paddled with raxor
straps, paddles and even boards from
boxes, turning the beds with the oc?
cupants and keeping them awake all
night, made t<> catch" bees that in?
fest the table, and put them in their
pocket*, and convey heavy boxes,
trunks, water and slop from one place
"Some of the boys would resent the
various insults, but when they did so
the* would be overpowered and given
a severe thrashing, either with fists or -
boards, broom handles, etc.
"Clemson will likely have a lawsuit*
on its hands unless something is done
to put down the lawlessness at that
place during, the first few weeks of its
opening every year."
OM Time Hot Supper.
The ladies of TIrzah Pnsbytertan
church, assisted by their good friends.
Will give at the home of Mr. Rob
Burkett. Deisel!, on the night of Oct.
1st, an old time Hot Supper for the
benefit Of their church. The p..H?c
ivfted 4 I ;'.tt: nd,