The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1909-11-24
CLAIMS SCALED
The D~ispensary Winding Up Commission
Makes Its Final Report
STATE SAVED BIG MONEY

6AIA4 6AA AA NAo 1ASASAA
Reductions In Amounts Claimed By
the Whiskey Houses, and the
Counter Claims If Collected, VII
Save the State Nearly Five Hun.
dred Thousand Dollars.
Nearly q half million dollars rep
resents the saving to the State OF
South Carolina by scalings from dis
pensary claims and over-judgments
against firms doing business with
the old State dlspensary, according
to the report Of the winding up COM
mission, which practically concluded
its work Wednesday night.
A history Of the old State dispen-
sary system, with that tale Of graft,
now a matter of general knowledge,
Is included in the commissions final
report. That the whiskey firms fail
ed to comply with the laws Of the
State in regard to the sale Of whis-
key, that various devices were used
to prevent competition; that the
board of directors Of the dispensary
failed to advertise for bids; that
prices we're exorbitant, commissions
and rebates we're paid, are a few of
the many charges brought and sub
stantiated by the commissions fnd-
ings.
Tho firms that fought the State
In the litigation In the Federal
Courts are taxed costs amounting to
$21,526. The net amount Of claims
considered at this sitting Of the
commission was $4,000. This does
not include the over-judgments and
the DEGREES formerly rendered. The
original fund was $630,O0O. OF con-
siderable local interest. and Of much
interest also throughout the State
is the claim of the Carolina Glass
Company's, g Columbia concern.
The amount claimed to be owed
this firm by the State was s~23,O13.-
rs, which Is completely wiped out
by the COMMISSIONS findings, and an
over-udgment rendered for $28,419,-
"a. The over-charges found against
the oncern are $~51,432.99, and 1t
was by deducting the original claim
from this amount that the over
judgment is found: The commission
issues a separate decree against the
| Carolina Glass Company, and goes
into the details o f what was alleged
to be a monopoly of the sale Of glass
to the old State dispensary. The to-
| tai sales of the Carolina Glass Com
pany to the State .aggregating SOFA
329.90 before the year 1906.
A large amount Is represented In
the list of over-judgments and mem
| bers of the commission and its at
| torneys that the firms will be pro-
ceeded against in the Courts to re-
cover the various amounts charged
against them.
conscience Fund" Over $4,000.
Col Fielder stated that the So
called conscience fund had already
| reached the $500 mark. This is
the money paid back by firms not
represented in the list Of claimants,
but who were charged with over
charging the State. One of the larg-
| est claimants and n that came In
| for some scorching when the origi-
| nal commission met are the Anchor
Distilling Company and Ullman &
Co., two firms classed by the COM
mission as one concern. An over
judgment of ~s30,621.56 is found
against this combination, this In
Guiding a proportionate share, s4,-
500 Of the costs in the courts. Will
liam Lanahan & Sons are charged
up with $2~3,563.46, although their
claims against the State was only
$~5,916.54. The commission went
back of the dates represented by this
| firms accounts in the claims against
the State, as did the commission in
q number of other cases.
Fleischmann & Co. and Gerson.
Seligman Company are treated as
one concern, and the $4,000 claim
is reduced to $45,645.30. This COM
pany admitted overcharges in aida
Wits. Clark Brothers & Co.. another
large claimant, are, given ~$53,7S0.96
on a claim Of $~66,3S3.71.
Carolina Glass Claim.
The commission in its special re-
| port in the claim of the Carolina
| Glass Company finds that "the oflc-
ers Of this concern entered into a
conspiracy to defraud the State of
South Carolina by defeating all COM
petition in the sale Of glassware
needed" The commission refers to
a bid of the company in September,
1902, to furnish 90 cars of glass
bottles at prices ranging about 10
per CEN in xcess of the prices paid
to Flaccus & Co., notwithstanding
the fact that other bids were filed.
That also the Flaccus contract, when
purchased, was for the purpose Of
stirling competition. as all moulds
of the Flaccus Company were turned
over to the Carolina Glass Company
and the former had no facilities for
filling orders.
1t is also charged that at several
quarterly purchases other competitive