The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1891-07-16

on the investigation in secret, ana tnen
made what has been generally duoOea
a white-washing report. Only ore
member, Mr.. Hall refused to join IN
this report, and has since published 70
the couatry, that the charges were fuliy
sustained, even by Macune's own con-
fession. Mr.. Latimer says Hall "Vlo-
lated his voluntary pledge" in dong
this, and Mr.. Stokes calls him dis
sembler" and "perjurer." Now "Clvls"
has not undertaken to decide between
them, and does not propose to DO so. he
has simply asked Mr.. Latimer' as
member of the committee, for cate
gorical answer, yes or no, as to whether
the charges against Macune were sus-
tanned; and as stated above Mr.. Lati-
mer has virtually admitted that they
were. Mr.. Stokes also, in his editorial
article fully and distinctly admits that
they were. He says: "The evidence
showed that these pecuniary transac-
tions were conducted in the ordinary
vay. Mr.. Calhoun had the money to
loan; DR.. Macune wanted to. borrow; ne
did 6o7row of Mr.. Calhoun, and gave
satisfactory collateral" Could admis-
sion of the guilt of Macune be more
complete? And is not Halls state
ment fully verified by the admissions
of both Stokes and Latimer? OF Hairs
violation of any pledges of secrecy OF
course know nothing, nor do l care.
In nay opinion there should be no
secrecy in such investigations.
Then Mr., Stokes accuses "Clvis" OF
making a representation that is ''posi-
lively untrue" in implying that the
transaction between Calhoun and Ma
cune had to be forced fromMacune by the
committee. Let Mr.. Stokes read my ar
ticle more carefully and he will find that
I do no such thing. What said lsas
follows: "Nr. Hall says, that DR.. Ma
cune finally admitted before the Ocala
committee that he had received these
favors at the hands of Calhoun, after at
first attempting to evade the admis-
sion.n And now comes the Nashville
American and asserts (saying it is pre-
pared to sustain it in COURT that:
"That investigation showed. from Ma
cune's own confession, wrung by severe
and torturing cross examination from
his unwilling lips" etc. But enough
of this. The guilt of Macune is fully
established, without Hall, by the ad-
Missions of both Latimer and Stokes,
and by their attempts to extenuate and
palliate his ofense. The trouble with
both these gentlemen is their apparent
inability to distinguish between DR..
Macune, the individual, and DR..
Macune, the head ''boss" of the
Alliance. AS an individual no one
would deny him the right to accept
favors from Mr.. Calhoun or any one
else. But will it be pretended by any
intelligent and unbiased man that he
had this same right as leading repre-
sentative of the Alliance? Be it re-
membered that one Of the leading and
fundamental principles of the Alliance
is opposition to monopolies, especially
to railroad monopolies. Be it remem-
bered, too, who Pat Calhoun is. He was
then and still is, if 7 mistake not, the
general attorney for the Richmond
Terminal railway company, which Is
by far the biggest railroad monopoly
in the South. This company in its
turn is under the control of Jay Gould,
the most powerful, the most unscrupu-
lous, and consequently the most dan
gerous railroad monopolist in the
whole country. Mr.. Calhoun then was
and is the paid attorney Of Jay Gould,
and has been characterized by proml-
nent Georgia Alliance man as 1.-The
brightest flower III the garden OF mon
opoly" at the South. Such is the man
DR.. Macune, the leading representa-
tive of the Alliance, would have sent
to the United States Senate, where
there are already so many millionaire
representatives Of big monopolies; and
thisin return for personal favors-the
loan of $1,000 and free railroad ticket.
Was this not trading Alliance princi-
pies for a mess of pottage? And is
such man reliable representative Of
that great organization and its pripci-
plies? That is the question for intelli-
gent and independent thinking Alli-
ance men to consider and decide.
But having devoted so much atten-
ton to Mr.. Stokes and DR.. Macune, I
can give but little to friend Wolfe. He
seems greatly disturbed because the
News and Courier and other napers do
not give him as much space as he
thinks his weighty financial efusions
merit. "Civis" regrets this very much,
for he is strorg advocate OF nearing
both sides of such important questions.
But he would assure Mr.. Wolfe, not
withstanding his supposed identity,
that he is not in position to control
lnis. But on the other side, what
chance does Mr.. Wolfe give the readers
of the Cotton Plant to read both sides
of this question? He says he has
proved that there is but fraction over
$500 per capita in actual circulation in
the country. "Civis" claims TO have
proved in reply by incontrovertible
official figures, that this was erroneous,
and that instead there is over S24.0G
per capita in actual circulation. Have
the readers of the Cotton Plant been
given the opportunity Of seeing that
:.