The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1888-02-15
THE DIRECT TAX DISPUTE.
SHALL Earle and Trcscott Ha, o Il Third?--
"A Disagreement Among tho South Caro-
lima Delegation.
Special TO tho News and Courier }

lima Delegation.
Especial TO tho News and Courier)
WASHINGTON, February Until this
tlme 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 whore dispute about the distri-
button of the funds might ipjure the
final passage of tho bill to pay these lust
and meritorious claims. The difficulty
arises out of an amendment to the bill,
which Senator Butler proposed before
1t passed the Senate. 1t provides "that
no part OF the money hereby appro-
priated shall be paid out by the Gov
ernor of any State or Territory, or anv
other persons, to any attorney or agent
under any contract for services now ex-
lstln8 or heretofore made between the
representatives of any State or Territory
and any agent or attorney"
The South Carolina delegation are di.
Vlded rs to the propriety or advisability
OF this amendment, as it is well known
to be directed straight at tho South
Carolina interests in tho bill. Senator
Butler states that he proposed the amend
ment IN good faith to protect the citizens
OF his State, who arc directly interested
in the passage of this bill. Without his
amendment ho claims that at least one
third of South Carolinas interest,
amounting to about $4,000 or moro,
will be paid over to Messrs Earle and
Irescott, attorneys, acting for the State,
under a contract made with tho Gov
ernor. He says he does not object to
these gentlemen receiving reasonable
ice for such services as they may have
rendered in lobbying this matter before
Congress, but he will continue to protest
against their stepping in and capturing
such large proportion of the entire
amount In his opinion the whole sum
should be paid over to tho State author
tiles, and the claimants permitted to
have voice in saying what they consid-
er reasonable fec 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 cndeavor to have it
retained in the bill. Should it be strick-
en- out he will ondeavor to have it re-
Moved when tho bill comes back to the
Senate. Should the bill finally become
law without it, and tho State authori-
ties decide to pay over to Messrs. Earle
and Irescott the amount they claim, it
will cause one of the biggest scandals
ever heard Of ir tho State. 1t will be
Ventilated In Congress and out Of it, and
South Carolina will find it's 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 tho Butler
amendment had he beer in the Senate
chamber when it was introduced.
WHAT MIR. DIBBLE SAYS.
Mr.. Dibble, when asked how he re-
CARDS the Butler amendment, replied
that he was opposed to it. A member
OF the House Judiciary committee stated
to Mr.. Dibble "5hat tho subcommittee
recommends that the amendment be
stricken out, under the supposition that
contracts had been made with reference
to tho State of South Carolina to look
up matters, and undcr the supposition
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 repudiate that contract or to pay for
those services out Of its general fund,
and 80 the sub-comm. tee proposed to
strike out that feature and leave any such
contract standing"
Mr.. Dlbble said that the action of the
sub committee was in acc, with his
views.
MIR. ELLIOTT NOT PARTICULAR.
Mr.. Elliott, who was also present, was
asked what he thought about the Senate
amendment in relation to tho payment
OF agents and attorneys. He replied
that he was not particular about the
matter.
MIR. HEMPIIILL CAUTIOUS.
Mr.. Hemphill 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 sec the bill jeopardized by an
unseemly contest over the distribution
of the funds.
EX-GOVERNOR THoAIPsoN's Position.
Governer Thompson, who was tho
State Executive when the contract with
Messrs. Earle and Trescott was made,
states that at the time when the contract
was entered into there seemed to be but
little, if any, hope that Congress would
ever take favorable action in this matter
1t was generally conceded that the task
of bringing the settlement of these claims
was hopeless one, and therefore the
contract was made on the same principle
that one would buy ticket in the lot
tery--little to lose and all to gain.
THE TREASURY VIEW.
Judge Durham, the first comptroller
of the treasury, says his attention has
been directed to this matter, and he
holds that the entire amount must be
paid over to the Governors Of the States,
and they will have the power to settle
with the various claimants. He referred
to the latest circular Of Secretary Fair
child, setting forth the regulations gov
erning attorneys and agents practicing
before the treasury department.