The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1908-03-11

WIG Soheiody Tie commission n0u
said to each and every claimant.
Come before Us, present your
claim. prove 1t to be just. honest and
untainted with fraud or graft and we
will pay It." The commission had
gore even further than this In its sf-
fort to do justice to both the state.
whose agent II was. and the claimants.
1t declared It's in.eption to pay each
claimant every dollar to which he
was honestly entitled. even though
the claim should be proven to be
tainted with graft and reeking with
fraud. All the commission purposed
doing was to separate the honest
from the fraudulent claims and to
pruns the graft infected claims Int,
a se,noiance Of honesty.
The claimants who sought shelter
IN Judge Pritchard's court did not fear
the non-payment Of the Just and hon.
est ;'art Of their claims. hut shrank
from an exposure Of their fraudulent
ani corrupt practices. anil they feared
the pruning knife or honesty, merci-
lessiy welded by :he commission. No
wrong was. done these claimants. un-
less IL was wrong for the commission
to lay bare their fraudulent practices
while PERFORMING the duty IL owed the
State to expose fraud, and how Judge
Pritchard can justify his action in
seeking, arbitrarily. to stop this good
work we fail to understand.
II none Of the claimants were be.
ing oppressed or deprived Of their
lawful dues Judge Pritchard's inter-
ference was not necessary. And the
very fact that he asked the members
OF the commission to accept ti,a re-
ceivership under him shows that ne
had Q certain degree Of confidencs ir
their honesty OF purpose and integri-
". and goes Tar toward disrrcvins
any claim that he might set up that
he sought to protect honest claim
ants against dishonest and oppressive
commissioner.
Another fact that also shows that
tlscrs wAS no necessity for Judge
Pritchard's interference was hA own
approval Of the decision Of the com.
mission In the natter oe the claims
which had been ordered paid after
having deductions made for over
oAArgsst uElawfsi, commissions and
o(s,cs forms Of graft. II Judge Pritch-
ara could % ptonptiy and chssrfuliy
approve the work Of ths commission
I'm respect 10 the claimants that COM
Piled with Tho rules laid down ~ the
eomniaaon whsss was the necessity
for his Interference In behalf OF other
c)aimants who were assured Of the
same trsatmans3 's'e
/ ytnaiIy. Il b cisariy evident that
JudSs Pritchard's interference was
not nsos~ary even though ne had the
risht to Interfere. II. ~ matter u
law. hs haA not the riSht to fcilo~'
the course M. has his action wa OUT
rassoss. H'S,t hs re
NJ. b, y. Arthur. of Unior. owes
ths people OF south Carolina an ex-
planatior Of his neglect of duty a q
msmbsr Of the oowmiston to wind
;sp the State dhpensary in that he
fAilcd. or refused. to attend the meet
inss OF the commission for the past
several months and that he did not
resign. This explanation Is especial
iy incumbent upon him since he &C
ccpted. with an appearance of haste
and easerness that was scarcely ne.
coming. the appointment rs receiver
Of the dispensary funds.
II Nr. Arthur was unable or unwill-
Ing. 70 diecharse tho duty he voiun-
tarily assumed when he assumed the
appointment as a member Of the
winding-up commission. It is a re-
markable proceeiirgsl to say the
least. that he Is now able and willing
to take up. at the request OF a federal
Judge. burden that he had laid
down.
Only Mr.. Arthur himself Is able to
explain his contradictory conduct. and
II he persists In maintaining a pulley
o' silence. he invites the public to
pu. the worst construction on the pro-
ceeding.
TIE acceptance Of Judge Pritch-
ards appointment by Mr.. c. X. Hem
derson. Of Aiken. Is likewise open to
criticism. and We do not see upon
what ground his action can
be 'usaihcd. As e member OF