The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1866-1891, 1870-10-13
MISCELLANY.
From the Charleston News.
The Sophistries Of Attorney-Gen-
eral Chamberlain.


of government, because the Scott Ring
have increased taxation, piled up tae
State debt mountains high, and, by their
shameless conduct, brought blush to
the check of every honest man In the
State. The Scott Ring, on the other
hand, take up the gauntlet and declare
themselves ready to stake their politi.
cal fortunes upon the financial record of
their party. The main assertions of
the Scott Ring were exposed, ard their
mis-statements pointed out, in tie pub
lie prints. 1t became necessary to
make out better case than was shown
in the official records, and Mr.. Attor
ney.G eneral Chamberlain, an adroit
pleader of bad cause, was put before
the public as the champion ofthe fnan-
tial policy Of the administration. 1t is
admitted that he did his work well, aud
his speech delivered at Chester is ac-
cepted as an official exposition of finan-
cial condition of the State, and of the
value and cost of the services performed
by the ruling party. The best foot is
put formost in this speech, which is
circulated all over South Carolina as a
campaign document. We have the
right, therefore, to require the Scott
Ring to staud squarcly upon the record
as presented by Mr.. Chamberlain; aud
we may fairly claim that demolition
of his ingeniously contrived financial
fabric is complete answer to The plea
that tie Scott Ring have given the
State q wise, honest and economical
government. This is no unreasonable
demand, and we contend that General
Conner, in the speech printed in another
column, shows, by Official statments, the
: iacofrecthess of Mr. Chambcilain's
assertions, and proves the literal cor
rectuess of the charges Of extravaganza
brought against the Scott party.
General Conner, after showing that
the average annual taxation in tie
State, for ten years ending in 1889, was
s43l ,S99, and in 1869 Was 81 100000
more Man three times Qs much
points out the fact that the total
appropriations for the State and county
purposes for the years 1858 and 1850
were 81 ,55i ,607, and in 1868 and 1869
were S3,43l ,469-more. than douJle.
Mr.. Chamberlain will not deny tie &C
cufaey Of these figures, yet he argues
that fthe taxation in "lS6S was only
$4,000 more than in 1885," To
justly this statement, Mr.. Chamberlain
deducts, from the total taxation of 1868,
a sum of $3.50, ,000.for accrued interest,
claimed to be chargeable to preceding
administrations. This sum was ap-
prepriated for payment of interest, but
mot one dollar tcas paid from the tares;
the whole amount, as the reports show,
was paid out ofth proceeds of the
bonds sold or pawned by authority Of
the Legislature for that purpose.
Hsre, then to begin with, is an error,
or mis-statcment, of a qurter Of a m,l-
'iom dollars.
In reviewing the expenditures of
1850 and 1869, Mr.. Chamberlaia makes
several deductions from the latter. on
the ground that Sin 1859 and 1860
that interest was paid 1chol!y by the
Bank Of the State" This statement
convicts Mr.. Chamberlain of gross neg
ligence, or of bold attempt to de-
ceive the people, for General Conner,
shows that both in 1859 and 1860
large sums uere raised by tdration for
the payment of interest on the debt,
and were expended for that purpose
Mr. Chamberlain does not stop here.
He deducts from the current expenses
for nearly half million dollars for ex-
traordinary expenses and interest, and
then sets down S6i7,67S as the real
expenditure for that year, as against
S549,Zl5 in 1860. General Connor
shows that, in this statement also, Mr..
Chamberlain is at least conspicuously
inexact. Assuming, therefore, the cor
rectness of Dir. Chamberlain's figures,
General Connor proves that the expen,
ditures of the Scott Ring government
farther exceed those of any other at
neintstration. But Mr.. Chamberlain s
figures are not correct. Deductins
from the expenditures of 1860 extra
ordinary expenses similar to those de-
Quoted by Mr.. Chamberlain from the
expenditures of 1868, we find that the
real current expenses were in 1850
Sl56,64Z LESS THAN THE SUM AT
WHICH Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN PUTS THEM.
Moreover, the sum of S424,424 de-
Quoted as paid to H. H. Kimpton must
be regarded with doubt aud suspicion.
This was no old claim Nor do the &C.
counts of Il. II. Kimpton and the
Comptroller-General tally. One shows
that 81, 1927 $3.50 is due the Financial
Agent, and the other that only $685.,
s66 is due him. 4 slight difference
surely. Looking closely into the ac-
counts between. kimpton and the State,
General Connor finds further, and still
->..o .k.rl1a., ,,etonao, &c I,,oro-oo