The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1906-07-18
On Certain Bills and Why He
Did So Stated
BY SENATOR MANNING.
He Reiutes the Charges Made Against
Him by Blease and Gives
Good Reasons for All the
Votes He Cast in the

The following ststement from Sen
ator Manning expisins itself:
II did not propose to be drawn
away from my plan Of campaign OF
into any controversy, but I intended
to conduct nay campaign on high
plane, without mud singing for do
not intend to ask for the suffrage OF
the people OF South Carolina by de-.
tracing from CT injuring the chsrac
ter or reputation Of my opponents.
But, inasmuch as mention has been
made Of my votes in the legislature on
certain measures, I feel IL necessary
to keep the record straight. I will
therefore have to correct certain
statements which have been made.
''Mr. Bie2se 10 his speech In Colum-
bis spoke with grest deal OF feeling
when discussing the work Of the in
vestigsting committee Of the cruelty
Of irjuring 3 mans reputation by in
situations OF suspicious. He las not
observed this rule in his reference to
me, fcr it will be found that in Civ
ing my record vote on certain meas
ures be has given only part OF that
record on those matters, snd has done
ne an injustice and created wrong
impression He may not have intend
ed this, and be said to me that he
would himself maze the corrections to
which 7 called his attention in q per
scnal COL yersatioa, but he has not yet
done so, and I will therefore set this
record straight myself.
I wish to say, with reference to the
hill regulating the rate CT interest IN
1898, reducing the rate Of Interest
from s to I per cent. that voted
against that bill. NY only business
at that time was farming. was a
borrower CT money annually, but I
felt that II money lenders could not
get the current rates for money from
farmers that they would land money
elsewhere, and the farmers, instead OF
getting oney from banks with which
to conduct tkeir business, would be
forced to get advances from commis-
sion merchants on lien at q rate Of
interest running from 10 to 80 per
cent. for advar ces. 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 sg
ricultursl class.
''On the child labor bill OF 1900, /
voted against the bill because Ct an
understanding had with CO.. Jas. L
Orr, Mr.. Lewis Parker, Capt. Ellison
Snyth, that they would use their ef-
forts to have the mills reg ulate this
matter themselves, If we Gid not pass
the law. then on that understanding
voted against the bill. They made this
efrort with the mills, but failed. The
following year 1901, the act was again
introduced and I voted for the bill,
worked stlenuously for its passage ana
spoke in support OF the bill, as Will oe
found In Senate Journsl, 1901, pages
2e5 and $40.
.On the bill to prohibit trusts, Sen
ate Journal 1902, pages 462-z72, my
reasons for voting as l did are as fol-
lows: There was ssction IN the bill
exen pting agreements with regard to
the sale ct agricultural products. Be
fore this, an act had been passed in
Tennessee ard 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.
cisicn OF that court was to the eject
that the whole act was invalid, mas
much as this discriminating clause 81
tecsed the whole act in favor Of one
class and rendered the sct null and
void.
I'm the senate, moved to strike
cut that section, because it would
make the bill unconstitutional, nul!
and void. I was trying to save the
bill. The senate refused TO strike out
that section and I then said that In
the face Of the decision OF the supre.
me court OF the United States, which
was so clear and positive, it was sim
ply chjld's play to pass an act when
We knew that the act would De nuII
and void.
as SAID, my purpose was to have
bill that would stand the test OF the
courts and prohibit trusts and nonop-
oNes.
Mr.. Blease again quotes from the
record in part ano Gees me an ipjus.
tice in the matter of the relief bill. l
oprosed the bill when it was intro
ouced because it vas stated, both by
the railroad authorities and the en-
nloyees Of the road, thai it was en-
tirely optional with the employees
whether they joined this relief depart
ment OF not. But MIR. Blease fails to
state my vote on the bill the next
I'm the meantime, 7 had investi.
gated this matter and made inquiries
smonq the railroad men themselves.
I supported the bill IN 1908, because
Was satisfied that it was not option.
Al with the employees, but was prsc'
tically matter OF compulsion that
they should join this department. OF
voul6 lose their position. My vote
for the bill is found in the Senate
Journal, 1908, page 245.
With reference to my position OF
the Capqhnan set Of 1900, I will 81
] voted against bill in 1892 VIE
nroyideo for a PARTITION in car, ou
eave NO separate toilet aeconnoca
Zion for the sexes, which would nav
been indecent. This bill failed oe
cause OF it's glsring defects.
The separation Ct the races was pro
yided tor by the set OF 1898. "nen
was not member Of the legislature
When the bill was before the senst
in 1900 to amend this bill, l Vots'
agsinss an indefinite posspoasmsns 9ssas I
vhtch would have meant the death 0