The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1909-10-13

found no evidence the prosecu-
tiou has produced that jury Of
his Peers will convict upon:
therefore there is no just reason,
because the defendant did not
avail himself OF the privilege to
go on the stand. to copnt it
against him. and say ne is guilty.
We are not so sure that no
one has suggested that Wylie
perjured himself in order TO give
damaging evidence against Far
mum" Surely The State would
not vouch for the truth Of Nylle 5
testimony, who admitted to coun-
sci for the defence that he lied
when not under oath. We may
differ frequently with out con-
temporary in many things. but
we have never doubted It's homes
", and we would not believe that
lit would stand sponsor for q
man who sells himself to
give testimony, even tn e
price being Immunity from
prosecution, and this is just
what Wylie did, and the corro-
borative evidence he furnishes is
another bought witness The
State cannot stand defender Of
such men, and the testimony Of
Mr.. Gage We contend. does not
convince the public that Farnum
ga, e his draft to bribe an officer
of the State.
The Columbia State fails Ito
understand how any law respect
ing person can question the
completeness of the proofs offer
ed the State" It's editor should
crawl out OF his she'll Of preju-
dice. go among the masses, rub
up against the unprejudlced. aud
perhaps he will discover that the
weight of sentiment will be IN
lime with the position this .lews-
paper has taken. Not however
as a defender Of Mr.. Farnum. as
The State would have it appear
by reproducing parts Of THE
TINES editorials. but from con-
clusions reached after reading
the stenographic reports Of the
testimony as published in The
State.
We did not give our readers
the benent Of all the evidence
against Farnum, because OF inao-
ility to do so, but we deny that
we have orare shielding Farnum,
and answering the States ques-
ton, did THE TINES wish the
evidence against Farnum TO con-
vince the jury" We answer, that
with the evidence presented that
jury. were We on it, we would
not have consented to a verdict
|of guilty, because, notw!thstand-
ing the States view to the con.
trary, there was no evidence to
convict Mr.. Farnum of crime.
Now if the States question had
read "would We have Mr.. Farnum
convicted, we should say, most
assuredly yes. if the testimony,
beyond a reasonable doubt, JUS
tiled such verdict. Whenever
ary man whether it be Mr.. Far
mum Or the editor of The State is
charged with crime, and Is hailed
before the court be is to be tried
by the Jaw, and he is entitled to
all the protection the fundament-
al law of the land gives him.
were this not true, life, liberty
and property, would not be safe
from she prejudices and whims
of partizan newspapers, and IN
stead of the courts being pure,
and free from bias, they would
soon become like clay iu the pot
ter's hand to be for or against, as
the newspapers may will to mould
the sentiment
Juries sometimes make mis-
takes, but not any oftener than
90 the newspapers, and it IS bet.
ter for a jury to err in acquitt:ns
ar accused, than to yield to pop
ular wrath that has been made,
and famed into flame oy parti.
zan press, and convict wrongful
ly. aWhy, The State is right now
making a strong effort to build a
sentiment against those yet to
be tried on the graft charges; it
is so intense in it's prejudice that
we believe it will destroy all
chance of getting a conviction at
all, matters not what the evi.
dence, and well may the State
of South Carolina cry out.
God save US from our friends. y
.THE ETHICS OF BANKING"