The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1909-09-29
SUMTER s. G., WEDNESDAY. SEPTEMBER 49, 100 ~

official was Influenced and whether
the State lost anything or not are not
ess ntial elements to be proved ex-
cept as to throw light upon the ques-,
tion Of the corruptness Of the offer
and promise and intent to influence.
The section is directed at the wrong
OF attempting to corruptly influence
official action with intent to influence
unduly the action of the officer by
the promisor. I charge you, how
ever, while upon this count, and 1t.
likewise applies to the other counts
and covers all of the propositions
upon this point submitted on behalf
OF the defendant, and it bears upon
the question of corrupt offer or
promise and evil intent necessary to
constitute violation Of the law here
In question. that by Section aS2 of
the Criminal Code of this State the
State recognizes that it's no crime
for the seller of goods to pay what
are commonly known as rebates to
persons holding Offices or positions OF
trust or profit. 1t makes 1t a crime
for any State official to accept rebates
for his individual use and not for the
benefit and on behalf of the State;
which means that while 1t is a crime
for the State officer to take rebates
and not turn them over to the State,
IL Is not crime for the seller of
goods in good faith to pay to the State
officer such rebates. as. for instance,
II salesman offered a State officer
charged with the duty Of buying
goods for the State his goods at the
same price as the price of all others
who bid for the sale and at the
prices Of like goods elsewhere, and
at the same time in order to secure
the order offered to share his COM
mission on the sale with the State
officer as rebate for the State II he
would buy his goods. not corruptly
so Offering and intending the rebate
for the personal use of the State Of
ficer. but in good faith only to push his
goods and earn his commission, he
not being responsible for whether or
not the State officer complied with
the statute referred to requiring him
to pay such rebates to the State
Now read you the section, gentle
men, upon that point, Section 3s2.
(Reads section.) This section shall
not apply to officers in accepting re
bates for their own personal use. but
for the benefit and on behaif OF the
State. With this statement OF the
law, and as to the modification of the
ninth and tenth requests Of the de-
fendant, shall proceed. They will
not be otherwise directly charged or
refused unless 1 am requested to do
SO specifically and to qualify them
each separately.
I'VE pass then to the second and
third counts of the indictment, which
have in different forms charged the
same offence, to wit, bribery at COM
mon law, the general definition Of
which offence is:
THE corruptly offering, soliciting
or receiving OF any undue reward as
a consideration for the discharge of
any public duty" And by undue re-
ward Is meant any pecuniary advan.
tage, direct or indirect beyond that
naturally attached to or growing out
Of the discharge Of the duty. or as
otherwise defined: Bribery is the
voluntary giving or receiving of any
thing of value in corrupt payment
for an official act done or to be DONE
AS IT Is a crime to take bribe, it is
clearly also crime to give one for
the offences are similar. The theory
OF our government is that all public
Offices are stations Of trust, and that
those clothed with them are to be ac-
tuated in the discharge Of their du-
ties solely by the consideration Of
right and justice to the public good,
and any serious departure from the
line Of rectitude in this behalf and
any corrupt tending to produce such
departure is a public wrong.
But One Offence Charged.
Now, as to those two counts. thr
second and third, they do not charge
separate offences, but the same Of
fence with a different degree Of par
ticularity. That is, the State charges
the defendant with a greater degree
OF particularly in the third than I'm
the second, the object being that fail
ing to prove the more particular al