The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1896-08-26
CndenIed.

FIatIy Contradict SIr. Hubbell-The
Former Claims His First Statement is
UndenIed.
To the Editor of The State:
Mr.. Hubbell saysjn reference to me
in your issue of Yesterday: every
word he says about my Offering him a
rebate, directly or indirectly, of any
amount, or in any shape, or al any
time, is absolutely false from begin.
ming to end" Yet he does not deny
the interview in the sample room nor
my statement OF what occurred there.
Should he DO so and when he does,
then he is the liar that I have already
branded him in such event.
now 60 further and say when the
offer of the 10 per cent. discount was
made in the privacy of the sample
room, Che having previously so pre-
emptorily refused TO give me the 5
per cent. Off l looked upon it.with
suspicion and hence the question,
"Will you let it appear regularly on
the invoices" Upon his declining TO
DO so and throwing himself behind the
trust I was fully satisfied his mean
ing was and consequently declined to
deal with him and have never done so.
In the matter Of interest, my letter
should have read, interest being
paid after 60 days in place of
80 days as stated. I now say
that his invoices for all goods bear
upon their face interest after 60 days
at + per cent. per annum," except on
the Xxx ryes which he bills at 81. 25
per gallon, four months.
You must understand that the quan-
tity of Xxx ryes is very small indeed
in comparison with the quantity Of
the other, which was billed on the 60
days time.
|: After assuming the duties of COM
missioner draft came in from Mr..
Hubbell's company claiming a balance
of interest due them. As Mr.. Traxler
had not returned any amount due
them as such, I refused to pay for
some time, and did not do so until |
had Mr.. Hubbell to come out and had
Mr.. Traxier to go over the account
with my bookkeeper, Mr.. S. w.
Scruggs, who was soon convinced
that there was an accumulated interest
from partial payments of accounts due
them amounting to $l,255.34, for
which amount I issued warrant on
the State treasurer, Mr.. Traxler agree
ing to the same, which I now have in
my Office in writing.
Even if Mr.. Hubbell did not intend
my putting the return "cash" from the
10 per cent. offered, in my own pock-
ct as is so religiously claimed, he cer-
tainly offered to act, must say, IN
bad faith in trying to beat and deceive
the trust" of which he is an honored
member and sn informed ali officer,
and in doing so he laid himself open
to be adiudged capable OF making any
kind of a proposition. As to the pars
of his letter which states IAN agent OF
his called on me with a letter of intro.
duction," the only party to whom
gave a letter Of Introduction was to
MIR. Robt. NJ. Mixson under the follow
ing circumstances:
About the time | assumed the duties
of the Office Mr.. Robt. NJ. Mixson, a
nephew OF mine, who is and has been
for the last 10 or 10 years, the solicit
ing freight agent of the southern de
partment of the Louisville and Nash
vile, with headquarters in Atlanta,
Ca, asked me for letters of introduc-
ton to several parties. in the interest
of his road. I readily and gladly
complied with his request and gave
him polite and gentlemanly letters to
the following parties: George Hub.
bell, Cincinnati; Messrs. Block, Acme
Brewing company, Macon Penn Glass
company, Anderson, Ind, and per-
haps to another one Or two, I do not
recollect. Wha. took place between
Mr.. Hubbell, the secretary of the
Mill Creek Distillery company, and
Mr.. Robert NJ. Mixson, agent of
the Louisville and Nashville rail
road, l do not know, but this [
do know, Mr.. Mixson never in
timated to me that his letter was to be
used for other than the purpose it was
written, nor was he authorized TO make
any proposition coming from me, and
|if any such proposition was made it
was without my knowledge. Immedi
ately on reading Mr.. Hubbell's letter l
wired Mr.. Robt. Mixson, asking him
for statement Of what occurred be-
tween himself and Mr.. Hubbell that
in any manner related to me and here
with l give you his reply.
Mr.. Hubbell's statement in reference
to my sending him an agent to nego-
tiate bears badly on his side, for after
refusing TO give the agent, as he states,
81 per barrel for X, 50 per barrel for
Xxx and So per barrel for XXX, he
himself offers me Sil.25 per barrel for
xxx and would not consent to put it
on the invoices. Besides had any
intention of such deal would have
been more discreet and not allowed a
THIRD party the knowledge nor part
of the deal.
| dislike very much 10 be forced to
intiict all this upon the people, but it
would be suicidal in nay remaining
quiet when stuck, and however disa-
greea5le 1t may be for me TO make
these appearances in print, the people
may rest assured that | will strike
back when struck. +. NJ. MIXSON.
The following is the letter OF Mr..
Mixson's nephew to him:
f. NJ. Mixson, State Commissioner,
Columbia, S. @.
Dear Sir:-Replying to your request
to state to you what occurred relative
to letter of introduction to George
Hubbell, secretary of the Mill Greek
fDistilling company, Cincinnati, given
me by you some time the first of the
year, 1895. beg to say that when I
called upon you about the time you
took charge OF the State dispensary,
and asked you for letters of introduc-
ton for several western firms, from
4 I