The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1902-04-30


make a "deal' involving thous-
ands of dollars and drop dead
in a short time after, and if there
is no evidence of the indebted
ness, litigation would result, and
then, with no evidence of in
debtedness or contract, the par
ties could take advantage by
claiming more than is their due.
Senator Tillman said he "gave
no note or other evidence OF
debt" and he "thought it fair for
this credit and the averaging OF
prices that the State waive its
rebates" He made it clear that
the State got no rebates, not
withstanding the fact that all
other dealers in Liquor did get
rebates at that time.
We venture to say there is no
man, firm, or corporation in
South Carolina that can go on
the market and make a transac-
ton involving even one third OF
the amount the whiskey pur-
chases involved, that can con-
sumate the transaction without
giving some evidence of debt; it
is simply a business improbable
ty, and as the Columbia State
very pertinently remarks:
Senator Tillman's explanation of the
reason the State received no whlskey
rebate during his administration OF the
dispensary has certain air OF plausl-
bility-but why in the world, with so
simple if not convincing defence, did
he keep it hidden for eight long years?
If it be valid now it would have been
equally valid in 1894 and during the
years succeeding when the charge OF
pocketing these rebates was so inces-
sanity pressed against him. Some ex-
PLANTATION seems to be in order on this
point.
The Senator says sit was only
through the confidence of George
Hubbell, of the Mill Creek Dis
tilling Company that the State
could get it's supplies on credit, u
then why walt until after the
death of Mr.. ELubbell before
making the explanation, when
the people were being told that
his transactions justified criti-
cism? Senator Tillman may be
honest and sincere in the ex-
PLANTATION he gave on Friday;
every thing he said may be true,
but even when the suspicion OF
dishonesty is brush aside there
fingers a strong, substantial
doubt which we had hoped he
would dispel. Think of it, a
man unknown to the commercial
world as a fnancier, being able
to 60 on the market and have
transactions for an institution
which was then having it's legal
ity questioned, being able to
consumate a deal involving hun
dreds of thousands of dollars,
without giving some evidence OF
Indebtedness, is marvellous. If
the courts had knocked out the
dispensary, this ''trust" that
sold the goods could not have
recovered a dollar, because the
State cannot be sued without its
consent, and Governor Tillman
was not personally able to make
good the claims. If the Senator
is correct. the whiskey "trust'
took risks that no other individ-
ual, firm or corporation would
take, in our opinion, and the re-
bates which it agreed to pay be-
ing waived, was certainly not so
strong an inducement to sell, as
endorsed negotiable commercial
paper such as business men US
ually demand.
The waving of 5, Z and 10
cents per gallon on thousands
and thousands of gallons will
sum up a large amount Of money,
the State of South Carolina
could at that time borrow money
at i per cent interest. and we
think, about the same time it did
borrow at that rate of interest.
Let US estimate the early pur-
chases to have been 100000 gal
Ions, at the average quoted
prices S1.18. this would make
S118,OOO, deduct Z cents per gal
lon rebate, and it should have
returned into the treasury $1,000.
If however, the money had been
borrowed at I per cent interest
as was done by the State for
other purposes, there would then
have been a saving to the peo-
pie of the difference, which
would be 81, 5000. Let it also
be remembered that these pur-
chases were continually being
made. and continually being paid
for, because the dispensary sold
only for the cash, and could have
made their payments as it did its
purchases monthly, hence, year
ly interest could not have ac-
crued.
In order that our readers may have
an intelligent understanding OF this
question of whiskey rebates, and mas
much as it was left out of the proceed
ings published on pages l and i, we
will endeavor to explain it. When the
dispensary system went into effect in
July, 1892, there existed a whiskey
trust-many of the distilleries COM
bined under an ironclad agreement,