The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1909-11-24
| CLAIMS SCALED
The Dispensary Winding Up Commission
Makes It's FINAL Report
STATE SAVED BIG MONEY

the Whiskey Houses, and tn
, Counter Chains Il Collected, VII
Save the State Nearly Five Hun
dred Thousand Dollars.
Nearly half million dollars rep
resents the saving 10 the State o,
South Carolina by sca!inss from dis.
!. pensa.y claims and orer-judgments
aga;ns, firms doing business with
.he old State d:spensa!y, according
to the report OF the winding up COM
| mission, which practically concluded
It's work Wednesday aight.
! 4 history OF the old State d!spen-
sary system. With that tale Of graft.
now e matter OF general knowledge.
is included IN the commissions final
report. Tha: the whiskey firms fail
ed to comply with the laws OF the
State IN regard to the sale OF whis-
key. that various devices were used
to prevent competition; that the
board OF directors OF the dispeosary
failed to advertise for bids; :ha;
prices we're exorbitant. commissions
and rebates were paid. are few OF
the many charges brought and sub
startiated by the commissions fnd-
!nss-
The arms that fought the State
IN the litigation IN the Fedora!
! Courts are taxed costs amounting to
s21.52s. The net amount OF claims
| considered at this sitting OF the
commission was $4,000. This does
not include the over-irdgments and
the DEGREES formerly rendered. The
original fund was ssso.oOo. OF con-
siderable local interest. and OF much
interest also throughout the State
Is the claim OF the Carolina Glass
Compapy's. Columbia concern.
The amount claimed to be owed
this Arm By The State vas s23.ol3.-
IS, which IS completely wiped on;
by the commissions findings. and an
over-udgment rendered for $2S.41S.-
"a. The over-charges found against
the concern are $5i 1929, and II
was by deducting the original claim
from this amount, that the over
judsnen, is found The commission
issues a separate decree against the
Carolina Glass Company. and goes
into the details o what was alleged
70 &c monopoly OF the sale OF glass
TO the old State dispensaEy. The to-
tai sales CT the Carolina Glass Com
pany 10 the State aggresat!ns sa1+.-
3e9.e0 before the year 1905.
A large amount is represented IN
the list Of over-;udgments and mem
hers OF the commission and its at
to-neys tha. the fms vii! be pro
ceeded against in the Courts to re-
cover :he various amounts charged
asa;ns: them.
conscience Fund" Over $50 600.
Col Fielder stated that the So
called conscience fund had already
reached the $780, 900 mark. This IS
the money paid back by firms no,
represented in the list OF claimants.
but who were charged with over
charging the State. One Of the aarg-
est claimants and one that came IN
for some scorch!rg when the o-ig:-
nal commission me: are the Anchor
Dis,illing Company and CMman &
Co.. two firms classed by the COM
mission as one concern. An over
Judgment OF s30.s2l.55 is found
against this combination. this IN
clud:ns 4 pcoportioaaie share, So
500 Of the costs IN the courts. Will
liam Lanahan & Sons are charged
Up with s23.SS3.is. although their
claims against the State was only
s5.eIs.al. The commission went
back o. the dates represented by this
firms accounts in the claims against
the State. as did the commission IN
2 number OF other cases.
Fleischmann & CO. and GcrSon.
Sel;gman Company are treated as
one concern. and the $4,000 claim
is reduced 70 $t5.6+o.3o. This COM
pany admitted overcharges IN aida
Wits. Clark Brothers & Co. ano;he:
large claimant. are given SOS. .1S0.9s
on 4 claim OF s66.3S3.7l.
Carolina Glass Claim.
The commission in its special re-
port IN the claim OF the Carolina
Glass Company finds thar the ot'lc-
ers Of this concern entered into q
conspiracy to defraud the State OF
South Carolina by defeating all COM
petition IN the sale OF glassware
needed" The commission refers 20
bid o. the company IL September.
1902. 10 furnish so cars ct glass
bottles at prices ranging about 20
De. cent in excess of the prices paid
70 F!accus & Co.. notwithstanding
the fac: that other bids We're filed.
That also the Flaccus contract. when
purchased. was :o- the purpose OF
stiming competition. as a.! mou!ds
OF the Flaccus Company were turned
over TO the Carolina Glass Company
and the former had no facilities for
Sling orders.
I. is also charged that at several
quarterly purchases other conpe1i'!rs
bids were suppressed. and the Caro-