The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1896-07-29
Tompkins was on the board; the

Tompkins was on the board; the
governor proposes change which
gives ofense; son-in-law Duncan who
is Tompkin's confidential and chief
clerk announces himself Il candidate
against the man who gave offense to
his father-in law; he starts his fight
by making insinuations of dishonesty
in the bond transaction against the
governor who gave otfense to the
Secretary of State for proposing q
change in the dispensary board OF
control. Now here we are facing
rumors OF dishonesty in the dispen-
sary and the bond business. Their
it is reported that Son-in-law Duncan
made large land deal recently, and
because we had something to say
about these things, it has become
the subject of discussion on the
stump, and Duncan and Tompkins
accuses the governor of giving us the
Information. The governor did not
give US any information directly nor
indirectly.
we said if there is any corruption
in the "bond transaction" show it by
convincing proof and not by vague
insinuations, and we said that if
there is any corruption in the dis
pensary business show it W also.
Duncan has as much right to buy
land as anybody else and he can have
the titles made in anybody's name he
may select, male or female and have
them recorded in Lexington or where
he pleases, it is all right, but if It
took any money that rigbtfully be-
longs to the State to buy that land
the people have right to ferrit
out whether the money came out of
dispensary rebates, commissions,
or any other source that did not
belong to Duncan. But it would be
highly improper to charge that Dun
can and some associates have been
making money through rebates and
commissions, unless the party max
ing the charge is backed up with the
proof to sustain it.
There is nothing in our editorial
that can be construed as a charge on
our part, for we would not make
charge of such a character without
proof; just why our editorial created
such a furore il the Office of Secre-
tary of State Tompkins that should
have caused him to go to Chesterfield
and give q don't recollect testimony"
in Earles behalf, we fail to under
stand. If we did Nh. Tompkins an
injustice he had our whole paper at
his disposal in which to set himself
straight, and being on friendly terms
with the gentleman he could have
written to US, and shown US where
we did him wrong, but he does not
write, ard he and Sop-in-law Duncan
tell their tale of woe to Chesterfield
audience and Tompkins is used as
Earle's Il don't recollect" witness
Was it put up Job for Tompkins,
the State chairman of the Democratic
party, to go to Chesterfield to give
aid to his Son-in-law Duncan, who is
regarded a PAGER for Earle? The
Times editorial was certainly a
fimsy excuse for the chairman Of the
party who is candidate without op-
position to go to Chesterfield. Evans
recommended to the legislature the
removal Of State officers from the
dispensary board; Tompkins took
ofense and in our opinion has been
fighting Evans ever since, and when
the truth is known it will turn out
that this is whereon Duncan based
his assertion that the State officers
were the enemies of the governor.
The fact stands forth in blazing let
ters that John Gary Evans is not the
candidate of State house ring, but
according to the testimony OF a con-
fdential clerk and son-in-law OF Col.
Tompkins, who is classed as one of
the State house ring, and who be-
came offended at the Governors ac-
ton in the dispensa,y change, John
Gary Evans is thorn in the flesh to
the ring and 1--WE will beat him." says
the PAGER for Earle.
John HASKELL ADMITS HIS Ne