The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1888-06-27

He is paid literally for arresting the defen-
dants and the witnesses against them and is
required by the warrant To bring them before
the Trial Justice Issuing the warrant to be
dealt with according TO law which Of course
implies that the constable Is to guard the pri-
soners until such lawful disposition is made of
them.
But rs he questions the accuracy of our
statement as TO the amount charged under
this head we would state that from actual cal.
culation made since reading his reply wo find
that he was puid over one hundred and forty
dollars for charges under the head of guards
extra days. and guarding prisoners at trial for
the three years Of 1885, SO and 81.
We stated that we had examined number
of his accounts and found that the charges
for these guards, at SO per day, for which he
had no authority of law, would average SD
year. 1t seems that we slightly over
instead of its being $50 1t was actually only a
fraction over SIG year.
| I'VE would state q fact in this connection
that notwithstanding he charged and was
paid one hundred and forty Or fifty dollars for
arresting the defendants and witnesses In the
case Of the State vs. Ellis and Ellis which we
cited in our report as being OF So trivial
character that it was dismissed after being
Investigated, he also charged the county eight
dollars for deputies to guard the Messrs. ELLIS
at the preliminary investigation.
| He must certainly have thought that these
gentlemen had committed some terrible Of
| fence and that they would make their escape
unless carefully guarded.
VI The sixth charge Is, that he had
charged six dollars mileage for bringing, Dr.
Riley here as a witness when he did nothing
more than write to him Or inclose n blank
TO this he says be sent Ihe first papers to
| the Sheriff Of Oconee; the second to the
Sheriff Of Pickens; the third to Prof. McCas-
Ian and the last to another party, and that he
had paid the parties what they charged-but
does not say how much that was.
We don't know that we can better dispose
Of this case than by simply stating what DR..
Riley has said on the subject, IN a letter
which we have before us, which Is IN these
words:
What the Sheriff Of Abbeville did IN securing my
attendance OF the several sessions OF Court may BE-
called-an arrest-I do not know. l was summoned
by receiving long document by mail which was
asked to sign and return. l supposed this was
binding myself legally to attend the Court. This
| did two or more times"
VII. The seventh charge is that he had
charged for hire OF conveyances to bring
States witnesses to the Court for which there
| was no authority OF law-and the case Of Nc
Canty was cited, for whose transportation to
the Court House he had charged the County
| $3.50. In his reply he says that he charged
only Sl.50 for bringing McCanty and that the
other 81 was for bringing some other witness
| es. -
| To this we would say that it was upon his
own statement to us that we included the
| whole amount as being charged for bringing
McCanty. Both entries are on the same page
of his account. the one right under the other,
and when his attention was called to the
charges as being without authority OF law,
| and we desired some explanation, he replied
| that these charges were for bringing to the
Court House Jos. McCantey, who Is one
legged man and therefore unable to walk
There was nothing said about any other wit
nesses having been brought, and If there had
| been, 1t would not have made any difference,
| as ne had no right to provide way for any wit
nesses to get to Court at public expense, as
they are paid mileage which is for the purpose
| OF covering their travelling expenses.
1t makes not particle Of difference, so far
as the wrong done the County is concerned
| whether it has been required 10 pay. this
witnesses, as there IS no law for either. The
fact remains that the county has been re.
quired to pay out money which 1t should not
have paid, Mr.. McCanty knew that he was
required to payhis own way to the Court; A;
and 1t is an lndisputable fact that he paid the
party who brought him here out OF his own
pocliet-as we can establish BY letter which
we have from him.
quently charged railroad fare and hotel bills
| for his deputies In serving warrants for wit
| nesses-for which there Is no law; This he
three cases of the kind, and they were un-
willing witnesses, who refused to come unless
they were brought.
| Was the like ever heard OF before? After
ness for whom he ever had warrant, and
swearing to the truth Of the same; and af-
ter being paid as II he had actually made
such arrests, he now sets up as an excuse for
charging the county for the railroad fare and
hotel bills of his deputies In making certain ar
| rests, that the witnesses would not come un-
| less they were gone after and brought: we
would think that before he could arrest any
witness and especially before he could charge
for making such arrests, and for mileage, he
would have to go or send for such witness.
However, 1t may be the rule with him TO ar
rest witnesses by letter as he did DIR. Riley,
| and that only where they refuse to be arrest.
ed in that way does he send for them, and
then charge for travelling expenses and ho-
the legal fees for making such arrests. Being
at q loss to know just how. to characterize
such conduct, we shall dsmisi 1t and pass on
to the next and last charge which lie says we.
indirectly, make against him.
This is in reference to Tony Hamilton, Tom
Brown, Henry Adams, Tom Mckinney and
Henry Cholmers, in whose names there had
been drawn from the county Treasury within
hundred and siXty-eiSht dollars for serving
as coDstabes. when as matter OF fact they
had never acted In any such capacity.
We simply stated the fact that 1t ap-
peared from the books in the County Com.
missionerS' office, under the head of Court
Expenses, that there had been drawn In the
names Of these colored persons large sums OF
money for serving aS constables, and that
from statements obtained from certain hab-
itues Of the Court and from the men them.
selves we learned that they had never acted
in such capacity and were never paid any
amount for such service. In his reply
to this charge, which he says, we made
against him, he says rs to Henry Chalmers he
was never in his employ as a farm laborer,
and received his ticket as any other consta-
Bile, and so far as he knows collected 1t. 1t is
n little strange that as intelligent negro man
as Henry is, and one enjoying the reputation
for honesty and truthfulness such as he does,
should act as constable at the Court for
eight or ten days and yet not know 1t {; that he
should draw one dollar and O half day for
these eight or ten days and then deny the fact,
when there was no reason for such denial /
am afraid, If 1t Is found out that this is the
kind of person Henry is, he will not be so
been In the past.
AS to Tom Brown, Henry Adams and Tom
Mckinney, he says that they did full work
same, Notwithstanding their denial.
The Sheriff has taken 1t upon himselft 10 re-
ply to our statement and the public having
heard what regular attendant upon the
Court has said, supplemented by what the
colored men have Stated on the one hand, and
what the Sheriff has had to say on the other,
1t is for that public to decide which is the
more probable tale.
AS to Tony Hamilton, we suppose there
can be no doubt but he has earned all the
money he has been paid. Mr.. l. Wilson's
certificate settles that point. Since read Ing
his certificate we are inclined to the opinion
that Tony has been greatly imposed upon by
each term OF the Court, as 1t would seem that
Tony has had to do almost every thing, while
each Of the others drew as much pay and
very probably more than he. Leroy might
have Stated Something that the other four
colored men did,i as: we have no doubt he
knew about as much rs to what they did as
he did about Tony Hamilton-but then they
denied getting any pay, and Tony didn't, and
hof M the that wouldn't