The Orangeburg news. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1867-1875, 1874-08-15

as the bonds, when sold, should pro
duce." Understood by whom? Ger
tainly by nobody who ever read the
law. The act creating the land com
mission expressly limits "the aggregate
amount 10 be expended in any one fiscal
year to "hc par valuc ofthe public
stock of this State created by the Gen
eral Assembly for this purpose" There
was, therefore, no room for any such
understanding rs the Nc,cs am Courier
speaks of.
| The commission had express authori
ty 10 purchase lands to the extent of the
par rai"e CT the bonds authorize If
they went beyond that limit, they
exceeded their authority, but even tn at
does not show corruption, or fraud, or
malfcasancc, on the part Of the com
mission. 1t was made the duty of the
land commissioner to purchase lands
not TO cxccc the limit above named
1t wa; plainly his duty to observe the
limit imposed by the act Of The esisla
turc.
The whole duty OF the advisory board
IN the matter OF purchases was TO tic
p'1cc Of land purchased The commits
sioners made all purchases, kept all
books and records, and were required to
report, not to he odoiso,y Joari, but to
tie General Assembly. If the
purchases exceeded the limit fixed. it
was the fault Of the commissioner alone
unless il be shown that the advisory
board had knowledge of the oxccss.
Certainly there can be no foundation
Tor charge of fraud against the aLvi
sorry board, or any member Of it, based
upoh the mere fact that the limit of
purchases was exceeded. 1t must, in
addition, be shown that such excess
arose from some il" proper or fraudulent
design. The injustice OF charging fraud,
unless tilcrc'Inotivcs@G are Shown. becomes
more apparent when it is applied to one
member of the board. Such charge,
resting upon such basis, is TOO mani
testify the result of personal or poll tical
iancor to require further notice.
The Aens onM Courier, assuming
that great frauds were committed, pro
cccds without hesitation to dcnouncc
a'r, Chamberlain rs "thc guilticst Of
ALL Now, look ut this specimen Of
democratic reasoning! Frauds were
committed therefore, Mr.. Chamberlain
is guilty Of fraud There is absolutely
not .onc particle of evidence adluccl to
connect Mr.. Chamberlain with any
wrong whatever in the land commission
Is any man to be condemned for fraud
until the fraud is brought home to
him
II Mr.. Chamberlain knew that any
lands were bought at an excessive price:
If he had amy part or lot in recommend
ing or instigating any such purchase
If he in any manner communicated with
those selling lands, or collulcl in or
copnived at any action which he knew
10 be fraudulent or improper, or which
he had at the time any good reason to
believe or suspect to be fraudulent or
improper, then the foundation Of
charge would hc laid Ofal this there
Is absolutely not Il word in the long
arraignmcnt Of the Ncms una Courier.
There is a supcrfuity Of bold an | abu
sive statements, with a most plentiful
lack OF proof, or even argument. No
lar man would condemn dog on $ :ch
evidence.
The question is not whether Mr..
Chamberlain stole, or allowed Others to
steal There is no alternative, for
there is nothing adluccd to support
either charge. Admitting all illcgali
ties and frauds which were ever charged
against the land commission, we say
again, there is not within our know
ledge one fact or circumstance which
has ever been adiuccd to show that Mr..
Chamberlain was ever party to any
fraud upon the State in connection with
the land commission.
Such is the case made bv the NC,rs