The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1902-06-18
A WARM REPLY.
/ Mr.. 4. z. 4. Dukes to the Editor Of
the Greenville News.
He DECLARES THAT CHARGES.
Made against Him by That Paper
are Lies and Exposes
the AnimuS of
Them.

The Grecnville News is fighting the
dispensary vigorously. at present it
has its guns trained upon A. F. 81.
Dukes. one Of the state dispensary
directors. The News makes its charge
with particularly, a characteristic
heretofore lacking in charges affecting
the dispensary. Stripped of verbiage
the News's charge. which it first
made on April 20, this year, is that
TWO citizens Of Greenville in last July
heard liquor dealer named Sprinkle,
who does business in Reidsville,
n. c., say it was his custom to
give the board of control Of the
South Carolina dispensary from
one to two dollars barrel rebate on
whiskey bought by it, and that he had
paid 4. F. II. Dukes, a member Of
the board, 81 per barrel on al order
secured through him amounting to l.
200 barrels. The name of a. T. n.
Dukes. it asserts, is on the register at
Greensboro, \. c., showing that he
went there personally to get the money
and avoid the inconvenience 6 a
check. Thursday t;c. .Greenville News
published an affidavit from D. NJ.
Hokc. in which be says, Sprinkle told
him he had to quit doing business with
the dispensary, because it was too ex--.
pens!ye. When asked Why itWaS too
extensive. he said. because OF the re-
bates demanded" Sprinkle is alleged
to have said he paid Dukes in Reds
vile 81, 900 for purchase of 500 bar
rels CT corn whiSkey. Sprinkle denies
ever having made such statements as
those credited to him.
In commenting on the charge OF the
News the Columbia Record says the
charge is certainly not proven by
Hoke'S affidavit, as the the GreenVlle
News will find if Dukes takes it into
court on charge of libel. 1t is easy
to make charges, but not near so easy
to prove them. Mr. Dukes is well
known throughout the state and is
one of the most respected men in his
county. The reputation be has gala=
ed there by a clean-a,ttd honorable life
cannot be destroyed by an alleged con-
versation with disappointed liquor
dealer who had lost his business with
the state dispensary. Suppose Sprinkle
s did says what is credited to him, does
that make it true? Who is Sprinkle:
His business is to sell corn whlskey
and he could not keep on selling goods
to the dispensary. Did this make hin
sore-and inclined to say mean things
about the dispensary directors? 1t is
a just principle that statement false
in one thing is false in all. Granting
that Sprinkle did say what be is alleg.
ed to have said, he said that he hac
paid Dukes 81 900 to secure purchase
of 500 barrels Of corn whiskey. The
books of the dispensary will show that
to be about five times the total amount
Of all purchases from Sprinkle. MOI
, need those books alone be relied on.
Sprinkle's books as a wholesale. liquor
dealer are kept under supervision OF
the federal government and viii make
the same showing. That one fact
alone destroys the value of what
Sprinkle said, if he spoke as alleged
, If he wonld lie as to the. quantity
, would he not lie in other particulars:
That is the rule which would be applied
in any other case. 1t is not at all unu
sual for men who fail to sell to the dis.
pensary to go off and talk about direc-
tors receiving money consideration
, for placing orders. That is way
they have Of relieving the feelings
caused by their lack of success. Il
, will take evidence, not such stuff a
that contained in Mr.. Hoke's state
ment, to destroy the clean record o.
Mr.. DuIeS'S life"
:, WARM REpTv