The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1909-10-06
Farnum Acquitted.
[Contributedl

j. S. Farnum of Charleston was tried
in Columbia last week, on the charge OIL
bribery of a ~dispensary officer in selling
liuuor to him. Judge Memminger presld-
ed with ability and fairness. In his charge
to the jury he held that it was not unlaw-
full for agent to divide his commissions
with a buyer, and it was not unlawful for
the state officer to accept part or the
agents commissions, if the officer put into
the state treasury the share of the com
missions which the selling agent gave to
him. Five days were required for the
trial, and when the jury retired into their
room, the first ballot stood eleven for &C
uuittal. Later on, the dissenting juror
Joined his associates in a verdict of &C
quittal.
The case had been ably prosecuted by
the Attorney General and his legal asso-
GATES. Farnum was ably defended by a
number of lawyers.
We have not heard %half-dozcn men speak
of the verdict. AS far as heard nobody
hereabout haslgone into commissions Overt it
The sun rose next morning on schedule
time, and during the allotted hours the
moon shone next night very much as it
did on the previous night. The Abbeville
cotton market was not p~erceptibly affect
ed. The wheels Of the cotton mill and the
oil mill and the g%inneries performed their
accustomed duties and the women of the
city abated none of their interests in new
hats that had just arrived.
Speaking for myself, l think the verdict
was what it should have been, and it was
what I expected, and wished that it
would he. The threats to put the grafters
in stripes which have been repeated so
many times in the last two years, has done
nothing to prejudice the case against the
prisoners. AS a rule, attorneys and news
papers wait until a man is convicted be-
fore assigning to him the gard OF a con
vict. The rule, / believe, is to consider a
a man innocent until he is proved to be
guilty. And a safe rule is to catch
before hanging.
Up to this time it has not been made
clear to me, that the state has lost any
thing by the alleged bribery. The alleged
higher price that the ~dispensary board
paid for it's liquor wa a source Of actual
profit to the state. If they paid a higher
price the profit was added to the higher
selling price, and so by the alleged mis-
conduct of the state officials, in partakine
of it's share in the swag becomes a partner
in the graft.
And being a partner in the graft, it had
no right, as the strongest member OF tho
firm to assume righteous indignation ant
then seek to turn the power and force OF
the commonwealth against its weake
partners. If the state was cheated by any
Of it's pals, the fact has not been made
clear to me. And not having been cheated
it had no moral right to prosecute anybo'
dy. If that right rested with anybody il
was with those citizens who paid too much
for their liqOur.
If it was wrong for Farnum to offer the
State part of his commissions, and if il
was right for the state to charge that Oct
as bribery, what shall Il disintercstcd ON
locker! think of the act of the state if il
scared ii suspected officer, and then offer
ed him immunity from punishment if he
would turn states evidence? Is there any
law authorizing the state to SELF to the
citizens immunity from punishment fol