Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1902-06-14

ky or on 1900 barrels. The question Is,
did he receive any rebates. II we have
made mistake as to the amount Of
rebates he received, Of course, we shall
lexpect to find the rebates entered on
the books. If the board sends us the
statement asked for we shall be glad to
publish it for what 1t is worth; and II
he will make 1t we shall be glad to pub
lish A SWORN STATEMENT from
Mr.. Dukes that during his term Of Of
flee he has never received dollar Of
rebate. discount, or pecuniary induce
ment from B. F. Sprinkle or the Reids-
vile, N. c., Liquor Co.
Yours faithfully,
J. K. BLACKMAN,"
Editor Greenville News"
It Is close on to a month now since
this letter was sent to the board
through our correspondent; but we
have not received the statement from
the board, nor the affidavit from Mr..
Dukes. Neither have we ever heard
one word from B. F. Sprinkle urging
the publication Of his letter or furnish
ling the affidavit we suggested. Both
Sprinkle and the members Of the board
seem to abhor affdavits like nature alb
hors a vacuum.
Having waited from April 29th to
date for some explanation from Sprin-
kle or the South Carolina dispensary
board Of control we think we shall not
be considered precipitate If We publish
the affidavit upon which we based our
first statement This affidavit is as fol-
lows:
In the early part Of July, 1901, while
was in Greensboro, N. c., I met Mr..
B. F. Sprinkle, the president, and In
fact, as I understand, the proprietor OF
the Reidsville, N. c., Liquor company,
of Reidsville N. c. After had known
him for two weeks or more, on one oc-
casion while in company with q friend
from Greenville, s. c., and others, the
subject Of the South Carolina dispen-
sary law came up, and along with 1t the
natural inquiry, among ourselves, as to
the amount Of rebate which was paid
to the members Of the board Of control,
by the liquor dealers in order to secure
orders.
Mr.. Sprinkle joined in the conversa-
ton by saying first that In his opin-
ion the rake-off to members Of the
board Of control could not amount to
much less than $4,000 year apiece.
Mr.. Sprinkle then went on to say that
after Mr.. A. F. H. Dukes was elected
a member Of the board Of control that
he, Sprinkle. was absent from Reids-
Vile for two or three days. and on his
return he was told by one Of his sons,
that there was a gentleman at the
hotel in Reidsville. who had been wait
ing there for two or three days to see
him. Mr.. Sprinkle said that he then
went over to see the gentleman, who
introduced himself as Mr.. Dukes. one
Of the board of control Of the South
Carolina dispensary. Mr.. Dukes asked
Mr.. Sprinkle II he had any corn whis-
ky for sale. Mr.. Sprinkle said he had
about 500 barrels that he would like to
sell to the state dispensary. Mr.. Dukes
then inquired what commission he, Mr..
Sprinkle, would allow him, Dukes, for
making the sale Of these 500 barrels to
the dispensary. Mr.. Sprinkle said I
will allow you 81 per barrel, which Is
the usual commission have been pay
ling the members Of your board. There
upon Mr.. Dukes bought the whisky
rebate amounting to $1,000. Sprinkle
further said had to hold this whisky
for about go days and when 1t was TAX
en- in at the dispensary at Columbia
and weighed, 1t had lost so much In
weight from evaporation, that I lost
money on the transaction.
i Although I was a South Carolinian,
I had not been in the state for about
two years and did not know that such
a man as Dukes was on the board OF
control until Sprinkle mentioned 1t.
When I left the state. D. M. Miles, Of
lSpartanburg, was chairman Of the
board Of control, and Mr.. Robertson, of
Pickens, was q member Of the board,
those were the only two men who l
knew to be connected with the board.
When Mr.. Sprinkle mentioned the name
Of Dukes, a gentleman who was known
lin Greensboro as DR.. MouZon, and who
at the time was reclining in the piazza.
apparently asleep, raised up and said,
why I am surprised to hear you say
that about Dukes. I am q member Of
the South Carolina legislature and
when we elected Dukes to the board we
thought we were electing an honest
man.
During the conversation 7 clearly un-
derstood Mr. Sprinkle to say that he
had been compelled to give up trading
with the South Carolina dispensary
for the double reason that he had to
pay this excessive rebate to the men,
bers Of the board Of control, and also
had to wait 80 long before the whisky
was weighed at the dispensary that 1t
was very hard to make a sale pay.
Mr.. Sprinkle at no time intimated to
us that he regarded his conversation as
confidential, and being a South Caro-
linian I naturally took an interest In
the facts which he disclosed At the
time of this conversation, Mr.. Sprinkle
was not favorably impressed with the
Iprofitableness Of selling corn whisky to
the South Carolina state dispensary un-
| der the conditions which he had been
compelled to adopt. I remember dis
tinctly that he said: IF was whole
sale dealer in rye liquors and case
goods. could afford to pay good re-
bate and still make money; 1t Is on
these rye liquor case goods that the
dispensary board Of control gets its big
rake-off. What we corn whisky deal
ers pay them Is nothing to what they
get from the rye liquor dealers"
D. M. HoKE.
Sworn to and subscribed before me,
this 18th day Of May, 1902.
| A. H. DONALDSON. IL. 81.
| Notary Public for So. Ca.
It will be noted that this affidavit
differs from our editorial statement Of
April 29th in two particulars. First. as
to the number of barrels upon which
Sprinkle said he paid Dukes rebate.
We stated from memory that it was
1000 barrels at 81 per barrel, whereas
Mr.. Hoke in his affidavit says 500 bar
rels at 81 per barrel. The second is
that we stated that Dukes was paid by
Sprinkle at Greensboro, whereas the
affidavit locates the spot at Reidsville.
AS to both of these errors we cheerfully
make the correction, and Mr.. Dukes
and the board Of control are welcome