The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1906-07-18

which 1 called his attention in per-
sonal conversation, but he has not yet
done so, and 1 will therefore set this
record straight myself,
sI wish to say, with reference to the
bill regulating the rate Of interest in
1898, reducing the rate Of interest
from s to 7 per cent, that I voted
against that bill. My only business at
that time was, farming. I was a bor-
rover Of money annually, but 1 felt
that il money lenders could not get
the current rates for money from
farmers that they would lend money
elsewhere, and the farmers, instead Of
J getting mone.I from banks With which
forced to get advances from commits
mission merchants on a lien at a rate
of interest running from 10 to 80 per
cent. for advances. For this reason,
| I voted against the reduction in the
rate, and believe that that action has
proved to be in the interest Of the ag-
! ricultural class.
..on the child labor bill Of 1900, I
voted agai;2st the bill because of an
understanding had with Col. Jas. l..
| Orr, Mr.. Lewis Parker, Capt. Ellison
Snayth, that they would use their ef-
| forts to have the mills regulate this
matter themselves, if we did not pass
| the law. T then on that understand
| ing voted against the bill. They made
| this effort with the mills, but failed.
The following year, 1901. the act was
again introduced and I voted for tne
bill, worked strenuously for its pas
sage and spoke in support of the bill,
as will be found in Senate Journal.
1901, pages 2s5 and $40.
..On the bill to prohibit trusts, Sen
ate Journal 1902, pages 462-472, my
reasons for voting as did are as fSl-
lows: There was a section in the 6ill
exempting agreements with regard to
the sale Of agricultural products. Be-
fore this, all act had been passed in
Tennessee and Texas containing a
similar provision. The act Of Texas
had been thrown into the courts and
had been passed on by the supreme
court Of the United States. The de-
cision of that court was to the effect
that the whole act was invalid, mas
much as this discriminating clause af-
fected the whole act in favor Of one
class and rendered the act null and
void.
sIn the senate I moved to strike out
that section, because it would make
the bill unconstitutional, null and void.
I was trying to save the bill The
senate refused to strike out that sec
ton and 1 then said that in the face
of the decision Of the supreme court
of the United States, which was so
clear and positive, it was simply
child's play to pass an act when we
knew that the act would be null and
void.
"As I said, my purpose was to have
bill that would stand the test of the
courts and prohibit trusts and mo-
nopolies.
..Mr. Blease again quotes from the
record in part and does me an injus-
tice in the matter of the relief bill. I
opposed the bill when. it was intro
duced because it was stated, both by
the railroad authorities and the en-
oloyes of the road, that it was en-
tirely optional with the employees
whether they joined this relief de-
partment or not. But Mr.. Blease fails
to state my vote on the bill the next
year.
"In the meantime I had investigated
this matte: and made inquiries among
ported the bill in 1903, because l was
satisfied that it was not optional with
the employees, but was practically a
matter Of compulsion that they should
join this department or would lose
their POSITION. My vote for the bill is
found in the Senate Journal, 1905
page 243.
.eWith reference to my position on
the Caughman act Of 1900, will say
I voted against a bill in 1892 whlch
provided for partition in car, but
gave no separate toilet accommooa-
| ton for the sexes, which would nave
been Indecent. This bill failed be-
cause of its glaring defects.
1.-The separation of the races was
provided for by the act Of 1898, when
I was not member oe the leglsla-
ture. When the bill was before the