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


oHd Class matter.
TIE STATES APPROVAL IS WORTH sav-
ING. But
Our contemporary The State,
Of Columbia IS determined to
carry out its policy OF trying TO
make the future jurieS render
verdictS according to the State
;ustead Of according to law aid
evidence, and while We are not
preiuGiced against |. government
by newspapers in the sense that
the expression is used by q GER
tain high othcis.l Of this State,
yet we would regard it as exceed.
ingly unfortunate if the newspa-
perS had the power TO run the
government. ccctrol verdictS,
and have the life and liberty Of
the citizens entrusted to their
keeping.
Ever since the now notorious
Faruum verdict, our Columbia
contemporary has oeep in labor,
and has been trying to give birth
to q. code OF morals which must
be accepted by the ether uewspa-
pers or suffer the serious conSe-
ouences of the States lectures,
and is a great temptation TO @void
such dire consequences. It is
evident that a majority Of them
rather than become enveloped in
a clcad Of the States displeasure,
trail in behind that great daily,
and bask in the sunshine OF its
approval. We too would like to
have that papers approval, and
occasionally We manage to get
it. bat It frequently happens that
our sight does not lead Us in the
same direction. and the result is,
we see things and view matters
differently. Because OF this con-
dition however, we do not lose
our temper and indulge in spite
full lnuendoes, creating false i'm
pressions Of she motives prompt
ing our contemporary, no, we
prefer to believe it's contrary or
opposite views is the result
Of ignorance, tnat It needs educa-
ting mentally as well as other
wise, then when that has been
done, there is hope The State"
win realize, it has not now and
meyer has had a monopoly Of the
brains and virtue.
The estate" lays much stress
on the testimony Of Wylie, Sau-
aess and Gage. the first two are
confessed partners in crime, and
SO far as We are concerned the
only testimony worth considering
was that of Gage, whose conduct
was not becoming, but We believe
he told the truth, and concedlng
it, occupying a confidential rela-
ton; be assumed the role Of
. detective and while thus spying
be gave to Samuels a marked bill
in payment of 2 draft signed by
Farnum. and subsequently Wylie
deposited with Gage the bill that
ne had marked. WHAT does that
prove2 It proves that Samuels
got a Farnum draft cashed IL
Gags bank, and later Wylie de-
posted the bill that Gage had
marked, which IS at most, a cir
cumstance pointing that Samuels
gare Wylie the marked bill. But
there ewas absolutely no testimony
showing that Faruum gave that
draft to his employee Samuels to
bribe Wylie, and the jury was
trying the case by the law and
the evidence as they heard it
from the bench and stand, and
were not there to guess, Or sup
pose tat Farnum gave that draft
to his man Samuels to bribe Mr.
Wylie; they had, as well as We
remember the testimony. as much
right to reach the conclusion that
this draft was for money TO meet
the demands Of MIR. Wylie as a
rebate for goods purchased from
Farnum. which the Judge charg-
ed was not a violation Of law, and
the evidence showed that Farnum
could not have sold to the board.
the trusted officials Of the State,
had he refused to comply with
their demands-the giving of re-
bates. Therefore according to
our view the testimony Of the
men who acknowledge they have
wronged the State is really not
corroborased, only so far as it
vas proved there was draft
given. and circumstances point
to a certain bill returning for de-
posit, but the only connection
proven, that Farnum had with
the draft was his name signed TO
it. no proof that the draft was
not q, loan, Or a rebate on the pur-
chase price of the good sold, a
bet paid, or what not. All that
was proven was that Sanuels
had eashed Farnum draft, and
Wyiie subsequently, deposited
some of the money paid to Sam
uels On such evidence a jury
could not convict and comply
with their oaths. a
The State seems to think. be-