The times and democrat. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1881-current, 1909-08-21
MANN MAKES REPLY
STILL CLAIMS THAT MIR. PAUL
LING EMPLOYED HIM
As Set Forth in bis First Article
in the Controversy, Which Was


in the Controversy, Which Was
Published Sometime Ago.
The following article from Mr.
Mann IS published as a matter OF
Justice to chat gentleman:
Editor Calhoun Advance:
I have already given the people
of the county true facts which form
the basis of this controversy, and
did not intend to write further; but
few statements over the sigma
ture of Mr.. Paulling require that
I give the people the truth concern
ing these matters.
In the article signed by him, and
which, presumably, was composed by
him, "unaided," Mr.. Paulling states
that the pleadings that I gave him
to have the bill, drawn from were
public property. AS matter of fact
the original pleadings which were
the property of the county were In
the Clerks office at the time the bill
was drawn, and the copy from which
Mr.. Cothran made the bill was was
my individual Office copy, in which
no one had any title save myeelf.
The people can Judge for themselves
whether Mr.. Paulling would have
taken the precaution to have gone
to the Clerks Office to get the orig
inal, mad 1 not furnished him with
the copy.
Mr.. Paulling also states that he
had conversation with me on the
morning after the claim had been
paid. This, like his denial of retain
ing me, is not true.
He would also have the people De-
lieve that I stated that l was to get
$50 for helping him. l think my
letter is perfectly clear to the av-
erage mind, but probably the author
of that article failed to see my mean
ing. told him that the whole
thing, meaning the court case and
all, would not cost the county over
this amount. so told him at the
time the agreement was made.
Mr.. Paulling states that there was
telephone at my boarding house
and one in his and that I could
have talked with him. The tele-
phone diectory verifies this stat
ement. Had I suspected that he
was gong to repudiate his agree
ment l certainly would not have tried
to settle the matter in that way.
A gentleman never suspects one Of
wrong doing in plain business
transaction, which both parties clear
ly understand; therefore, did not
take the precaution that I would
now take, in view Of recent reve-
lations.
He has also stated that the SER
vices rendered by me were rendered
voluntarily. This statement Is so
absurd that it carries with 1t the
force of it's own falsity.
I am IA the practice Of law for
living, and not for the patriotic
purpose of furthering Mr.. Paulling's
interests as he would have you be-
leve. Further, I am not one of
the volunteer" kind. If business
does not come to me certainly do
not go out and hunt for it. To ask
the people Of Calhoun county to be-
lieve that a reputable man, already
charged with work that occupies his
time all day and frequently greater
part of the night, would give volun-
tarily and free Of charge, his time
and render valuable assistance to one
who was offering to pay others for
assistance, is presuming too much
upon the conscience of an intellect
ual people.
I ask the people to read carefully
my statement of the facts, then read
Mr.. Paulling's reply, and note how
few facts as given by me are denied
by him, or have been controverted
by the letters introduced from his
in a single material instance?
Now finally, / reaffirm that Mr..
Paulling retained my services in
good faith and nnmistakable terms,
and that those services were render
ed accordingly.
1 would describe his conduct and
denial in palmer and more descrip-
tive language, but I am informed
that newspaper ethics would not per-
nit the printing of truth so plainly
stated.
have an abiding faith in the ulti-
mate triumph of truth and justice.
and with these brief remarks, leave
the matter of final judgment to the
integrity and manhood Of the citi
zenship of Calhoun county.
Very truly,
M. M. MANN.