The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1909-09-29
TIE COLUMBIA STATES FRENZY.

TIE COLUMBIA STATES FRENZY.
There is no Use going into hyS
teric> over the verdict in the Far
nun case as The Columbia State
is doing: the case was tried in
the courts Of Richland county and
: jury sworn TO go by the law
and the evidence rendered their
verdict, that verdict settles the
controversy SO far as the practl
cal effect is concerned. and unless
The State is prepared to show
that the jurors did not do their
duty as they saw it. it must ac-
cept their action as Snal. There
is no one more anxious than we
are TO bring the graIterS to JUS
tice. but if they are to be brought
to justice by the purchase Of ceS-
timonv, as seems TO have been
the policy Of the State, then we
say the jury did just what : ma
jority of the iuries Of the State
will do-place but little stress
upon the testimony Of traitors
whose evidence was purchased
by the State with the promise of
Immunity from prosecution. Then
too. that jury, according to the
published statement Of one of
them. was not satisfied that it
was proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that Farnum had bribed
Wylie, Notwithstanding Wylie's
confession. There is no doubt
that Wylie received money
through Samuels from Farnum,
but there is no proof the money
was paid as bribe: it may have
been paid as a rebate and as we
understand the Judges charge a
seller has right to give a re-
bate to an officer and he is notre-
sponsible if that officer makes
corrupt use Of that rebate. If q
rebate was given to Wylie, and
Wysie did not turn that money
over to the State he stole that
much OF the peoples money and
should besent to the penitentiary.
Then again the evidence Of q self
confessed thief is a very unsafe
proposition for jurors to handle.
a man that viii steal as WylieI
has confessed to have done. will
not hesitate to lie, especially
when mis- confession has been
purchased with the promise of
Immunity If be furnishes evi-
dence against those who were ac-
cused with him in crime.
Now let US be fair, and not get
spiteful because a jury did not
render a verdict according to our
own idea Of justice, and give
them credit for honesty: study
the Judges charge and all the
way through it be gave the jury
the law, aud ali the way through
it viii be seen that jury has no
right to render a verdict to graf
ify popular clamor, but they must
render a verdict according to the
law and the evidence. We as.
sumo, until the contrary is shown.
that this jury did what they were
sworn TO do.
What was Farnum's crime? He
was charged with bribing Mr..
Wylie, does the evidence
show that Farnun did the brib-
ing, or does it show that entrust
&c officers Of the State Of South
Carolina had a system Of hold
up. and forced those doing busi-
ness with the State TO pay them
a rebate. It looks to US from
what came from the mouth of
MIR. Wylie, that Farnum in order
to sell any goods to the State,
was forced to comply with the
demands OF Mr.. Wylie and his as
sociates, and if anybody should
have stripes put upon them, it is
Mr.. Wylie and his gang of p,lfer-
erS.
Attorney General Lyon deserv.
es great credit for his earnest eff
forts to bring to justice the men
who stole from the State, and We
yet hope he will be able to land
in the peniteutiary the thieves.
out we are not of those who would
convict a man because ne is ac-
cuse aor would We convict to
make or unu.ake any mans poll
tical future. We do not think the
Columbia State should be so Sc.
we're on a jury whose conclusions
were different from what the
State had hoped for, that jury
is not by itself in such a con-
clusion. There is a wide differ
ence Of opinion whether the pros.
ecution made out case against
the accused sufficient to warrant
a conviction.