Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1909-09-29
REBATING-WHAT Is IT .

Tho recent acQuittal of James Far
mum, Of Charleston, by Il jury at
Columbia, of the charge Of giving
rebates, or briDcs. to a state officer
in consideration for certain services
whereby Farnum. or the company he
represented, was benefited. places
the Commonwealth of South Caro-
lima, as we see it, in a peculiar light
We may ask. What is a rebate? Is
it bribe? Is rebate, or bribe,
lcgal-eithcr in the giving or the
taking? Under certain circum-
stances rebate is lawful, just and
honorable, in our opinion, and con-
SttuteS nothing morally improper or
legally wrong. Such a condition
might exist between two individuals
acting on their own account with
outside parties, whcrc one party is
10 give to the other a certain rebate
or discount for carrying out a deal
which the other party cannot accom-
plish.
But can there he any moral pro-
pricty or legal right in such a case as
Is presented by the acts of Farnum,
representing Il liquor concern, and
Wylic, reprcscnting th" Si"t"p W:
lie was paid by the State to assist i'm
carrying on the States rotten liuuor
business, and the fact that he re-
ceived compensation for his services
and his time made it plain that he
was to assist the State in purchasing
liquors to the best advantage for the
State. Yet he enters into n bargain
with Farnum to do certain things. to
secure certain business for the firm
he represented, and for these ser
vices Wylic received something like
1000 or $4,000. Such n case Is
clearly morally improper and legally
wrong. Farnum paid a sum to elm
mate his company from competition.
and Wylie deprived his employer, the
state, from receiving the benefits of
lower prices by reason OF competi-
ton, and also put into his pockets
several thousands Of dollars received
by him for perpctrating a fraud on
other liquor concerns as well as the
state. whose servant he was.
AS We view it, both rarnum ald
Nylic are guilty-and Wylie more
guilty than Farnum. Yet Farnum
stands acquitted by Jury of his
peers, and Wylic. as Il consideration
Tor turning States evidence against
Famum. is not to be indicted.
In our opinion, the Commonwealth
made grave error in Offering wv
lie, State officer. immunity from
indictment for his (thc largcrD share
In the offcnSc, IN order that his con-
feSSion might be used TO convict Far
mum. "hat confession failed to con-
Wet. Were the jurymen prciudiced
against the state of South Carolina.
or were they loath to convict one
man on the confession of another,
whom they knew to be more guiltv
than the man on trial? There are
numerous phases to this case, hut we
cannot see 1t i'm any other light than
Guilt-decp guilt of fraud and cor
ruption-for both Farnum and wv
lie. Yet both 30 unwhipt of Justice
the former by the mot guilty" pro-
nounccd by his fcllow-mcn, the lat
tor by reason Of an ill-adviscd agree
mcnt for a confession with immunity
from Indictment as the consideration.
The State Of South Carolina ought
to be able to convict her criminals,
her bribe-givers and bribe-takers.
There is said to be honor among
thieves" but when one turns on the
other "for valuable consideration"
honest men are loath to accept "con-
fessions" as sufficient evidence to
convict.
We by no means concur In the
1ury's verdict acquitting Farnum,
but jury has wide latitude, and
their verdict can scarcely be said to
be more at variance with Justice than