The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1888-02-15
THE DIRECT TAX DISPUTE.

THE DIRECT TAX DISPUTE.
Shall Earle and Trescott Aa g Third?--
A Disagreement Among the South Caro-
lima Delegation.
Especial to the News and courier)
WASHINGTON, February Until this
time I have refrained from writing any
thing about the controversy now pend
ing between certain members OF the
South Carolina delegation relative to re-
funding the direct taxes to the citizens
of the State. The matter IS just IN that
shape where dispute about the distri-
button of the funds might iDjure the
final passage of the bill to pay these Just
and meritorious claims. The difficulty
arises out of an amendment to the bill,
which Senator Butler proposed before
it passed the Senate. Il provides "that
no part of the money hereby appro-
priated shall be paid oEssSSbY tae- Gov
ernor of any State or Territory, or any
other persons, to any attorney or agent
under any contract ior services now ex-
isting or heretofore made between the
representatives OF any State or Territory
and any agent or attorney"
The South Carolina delegation are d.
yided as to the propriety or advisablllty
of this amendment, as it is well known
to be directed straight at the South
Carolina interests in the bill. Senator
Butler states that he proposed the amend
ment in good faith to protect the citizens
of his State, WHO are directly interested
in the passage of this bill. Without his
amendment he claims that at least one
third of South Cardinals interest,
amounting to about 100000 or more,
will be paid over to Messrs. Earle and
Trescott, attorneys, acting for the State,
under contract made with the Gov
ernor. He says he does not object to
these gentlemen receiving reasonable
fee for such services az they may have
rendered in lobbying this matter before
Congress, but he will continue to protest
against their stepping in and capturing
such a large proportion OF the entire
amount. In his opinion the whole sum
should be paid over to the State author
tiles, and the claimants permitted to
have voice in saying what they consld-
er reasonable fee to be paid over to the
attorneys.
SENATOR BUTLER DETERMINED.
He says there are members Of the
House who have examined his amend
ment and they will endeavor to have it
retained in the bill. Should it be strlck-
en- out he Will endearor to have it re-
newed when the bill comes back to the
Senate. Should the bill finally become
law without it, and the State authori-
ties decide to pay over to Messrs. Earle
and Trescott the amount they claim, it
will cause one of the biggest scandals
ever heard Of in the State. 1t will be
ventilated in Congress and out of it, and
South Carolina will find its direct tax
money curse in instead of an intended
blessing.
SENATOR HAMPTON on THE OTHER SIDE.
Senator Hampton differs with his col
league On this question, and declares
that he would have opposed the Butler
amendment had he been in the Senate
chamber when it was introduced.
WHAT Mr.. DIBBLE SAYS.
Mr.. Dibble, when asked how he re-
CARDS the Butler amendment, replied
that be was opposed to it. 4 member
of the House Judiciary committee stated
to Mr.. Dibble "that the subcommittee
recommends that the amendment be
stricken out, under the supposition that
contracts had been made with reference
to the State of South Carolina to look
up matters, and under the supposltion
that it would be unjust and inequitable
if they were prevented from receiving
compensation for their services under
those contracts. The bill as it passed
the Senate would compel the State either
to repudiste that contract or to pay tor
those services out of its general fund,
and so the subcommittee proposed to
strike out that feature and leave any such
contract Standing"
Mr.. Dibble said that the action OF the
subcommittee was in accord with his
views.
ME. ELLIOTT NOT PARTICULAR.
Mr.. Elliott, who was also present, was
asked what he thought about the Senate
amendment in relation to the payment
of agents and attorneys. He replied
that he was not particular about the
matter.
MR. HEMPHILL CAUTIOUS.
Mr.. Hemphin says he does not care to
become mixed up in this matter, but de-
sires that the peoples interests shall be
looked after first, and the attorneys can
get their fees afterward. He says further
that the State officers should be able to
adjust tie matter amicably, and he would
dislike to see the bill jeopardized by an
unseemly contest over the distribution
of the funds.
EX-GOVERNOR THoMpsoN's POSITION.
Governor Thompson, who was the
State Executive when the contract with
Messrs. Earle and Trescott was made,
states that at the time when the contract
uos e,,tara5 into there seemed TO be but