The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1894-08-15
Ir. Burgess Again.
SrNurr4oy : C.. AUG. 6. 1921

SUMMEE1oS. $. c., Aug. &. 1871
Editor The Manning rin-s:
Dear S:r:-After so long q time the board
of county commissioners have attempted a
reply, through this proxy, to our recent
communication We ask space !or what
follows
In the beginning MI Davis questions
our authorship. We will Ee more compll-
mentarv and say we do not doubt Mr. Da-
vis's sole authorship Of his article, for none
else could or would have held himself up
to the public gaze in so ridiculous an as
pect, and since there is more Davis than
anything else in il, We beg pardon for the
amount of Davis we must necessarily bring
into this second communication.
We charged that the board made an an
necessary number Of visits to the crossing
in question Sec how nicely and unwit-
tingly Mr.. Davis substantiates that charge
as follows: NO one doubts that this COM
munity needs exactly what they are asking
for" The board certainly saw the
necessity Of the work. 'Ihey
arrived q; this conclusion from the
report of Mr.. Holladay upon his
visit there March 10th, 1898. Mr.. Holla-
day came alone, and upon his report the
board concluded that the work was a he
cessity" Why then, we repeat, should the
entire board and not two of them. as Mr..
Davis says. revisit the crossing on July
24th, 1898: Surely they will not say they
came because we invited them. Small
credit 10 Mr. Hollatlay's judgment and ''re-
port" and their own formed ''concluslon"
as board. But the visit was charged up
to the county, just the Same. After con-
cluding that the work,''was a necessity, We
suppose a Reconsideration" WAS IL order
and they thought il best to i'll GO and cor
roberate this conclusion.
Further On Mr.. Davis says this third WIS.,
it was "in accordance with an official (not
legal) notice that they would receive bids.
Having concluded that tie work w@s
necessity" having all gone to the spot and
corroberated this conclusion, was 1t neces-
sary they should all be there to receive
bids? Could not one of them have received
bids? That they paid an unnecessary
number OF visits is clear.
Mr.. Davis says, 1.-The petition was not
granted or brought 10 the attention of the
board until after Mr.. Holidays visit on
March 18th, 1898 Now we reassert that
We did 60 to Manning at the February
term of court '93, that we did see each Of
the Messrs. Davis, aad that they did prom
ise US to put the petition in the hands OF
the grand jury He goes on to say, 81
know I could have declined to have done
any such thing, knowing that it was the
duty Of the county commissioners to lrSt
pass upon such matters, aud only in case
Of their gross and wilful neglect could it
then be proper for grand jurys present
mert." In that statement Mr. Davis
places the gross and wilful neglect GER
tainly upon his aud his fathers shoulders.
Why was not the petition brought to the
attention Of the board prior to Mr. Hoiia-
days visit to Taw Cav on March 18th, 93?
It was in the hands Of the Mess-s. Davis at
least five months before this date. We
knew there was gross and wi!frl neg:cci"
some where, ard it was this Very fact that
caused US to 70 to Manning and endeavor
to get this petition placed in the hands OF
the grand jarv We took Mr.. L VI. 1;asIn
with Us and he remembers TIE cIrcum-
stances. NJ. J. J. Ragin WAS foreman OF
the grand Jury, and lie remembers our 60
ing to him st his hotel, relating our inter
views with the MesSrs. Davis ani asking
him 20 be on the lookout tor tae
petition. Perhaps we can help Nj.
w C. Davis's memory Wee bit.
Tr Davis, do you remember L":n9
engaged at the February court 93 III
the defenee Of some negroes being prose
cuted by Mr.. Ned Ingram fol- having stolen
an cold red sow" We regretted having to
do so hut bud yoa called to the front door
of court house and asked yoa about the
petition. You told US yes 1t WIS IN the
commissioners office, but that you couli
no, 90 % get it then, and besides you could
not let it 60 from the Office as twas u mat
ter of record, but that you could furnish q
COPY 4 matter OF record, but Up 10 this
time and even until the 10Th of March had
not been brought to the attention OF the
board. Gross and wilful neglect We
told you we did not expect you to leave
your case, (tlough Mr.. Rhame was at the
desk during your absence) but simply
asked that the petition be put IN the
hands Of the grand jury, and you said you
would see that it was done We had pre-
viously seen your father, and be told us
the paper was in your hands, but that he
veracity with the Messrs. Davis at any time
and place.
Now. it seems to as that We ind here 4
poor lawyer with worse memory, for lie
not only lost his case, lost the "oid red
SOW" but lost his memory also. Poor man!
Too bad We suppose the mental strain
in managing this hog.stealing case was too
much for the young attorneys brain, his
memory gave way, he forgot the ob!!ga-
lions of his clerkship, and has not the
''faintest recollection" OF having been called
from his desk and asked about the petition.
We are glad Mr.. James E. Davis does
not deny spending a night with Mr.. Tur-
ner, suggesting the petition, and saying he
would use his influence with the commits
sioners But what ''gross and wilful neg
lect" Of his promises Mr.. Davis was
candidate and perhaps that was his way OF
catching votes He will have to change his
bait when next he visits Taw Cav, tor our
memory can hold fox four years at least.
Mr.. Davis accuses US Of badly "misrepre-
senting" Senator Ragin. What possible
object could we have in so doing? Mr..
Ragin is our close and intimate TREND.
He authorized the statement we made and
was to have written us from Columbia that
We might produce his statement IN black
and white at the time our committee met
the board, but for some reason of lis own
did not do so. We accept Mr.. Dariss ex-
planation as to the S275 surplus, bat Low
about the S400 out of which Dir. Ragln says
this work was to be done?
Our mares nest" is the board OF COM
missioners with their official management,
and their clerk is the whinncyius colt.
Mr.. Davis wishes to shiTk 10 response
bility and it was upon his "advicc Us o.e
Of their attorneys that they reconsidered. -"
For PHYS sake how many attorneys have
they? We suppose each is expected to re-
member what the other forgets and in that
haphazard way keep the board well advised.
How about the three day advertisement