The times and democrat. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1881-current, 1909-11-20
CLAIMS SCALED
The Dispensary Winding Up Commission
Makes Its Final Report
STATE SAVED BIG MONEY

STATE SAVED BIG MONEY
Reductions in Amounts Claimed by
the Whiskey Houses, and the
Counter Claims if Collected, VIII
Save the State Nearly Five Hun
dred Thousand Dollars.
Nearly half million dollars rep
resents the saving to the State OF
South Carolina by scalings from dis
pensary claims and over-judgments
against firms doing business with
the old State dispensary, according
to the report of the winding up COM
mission, which practically concluded
it's work Wednesday night.
A history of the old State dispen-
sary system, with that tale of graft,
now a matter of general knowledge,
is included in the commissions final
report. That 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 dispensary
failed to advertise for bids; that
prices were eXorbitant, commissions
and rebates were paid, are few Of
the many charges brought and sub
stantiated by the commissions find
iags.
The firms that fought the State
in the litigation in the Federal
Courts are taxed costs amounting to
s21,526. The. net amount Of claims
considered at this sitting Of the
commission was $4,000. This does
not include the over-judgments and
the DEGREES formerly rendered. The
original fund was s63O,O0O. OF con-
siderable local interest, and Of much
interest also throughout the State
is the claim of the Carolina Glass
Company's, a Columbia concern.
The amount claimed to be owed
this firm by the State was S23,013.-
rs, which is completely wiped out
by the commissions findings. and an
over-udgment rendered for S2S,419,-
"a. The over-charges found against
the concern are $51,432.9s, and it
was by deducting the original claim
from this amount that the over
judgment is found. The commission
issues q separate decree against the
Carolina Glass Company. and goes
into the details what was alleged
to be monopoly of the sale Of glass
to the old State dispensary. The to-
tai sales of the Carolina Glass Com
pany to the State aggregating s514,-
329.90 before the year 1906.
A large amount is represented In
the list of over-judgments and mem
bers of the commission and its at
torneys that the firms will be pro-
ceeded against in the Courts to re-
cover the various amounts charged
against them.
"Conscience Fund" Over $4,000.
Col Fielder stated that the So
called conscience fund had already
reached the $4,000 mark. This is
the money paid back by firms not
represented in the list OF claimants,
but who were charged with over
charging the State. One Of the larg-
est claimants and one that came in
for some scorching when the origi-
nal commission met are the Anchor
Distilling Company and Ullman &
Co., two firms classed by the COM
mission as one concern. An over
judgment of $30.621.55 is found
against this combination. this in
GLIDING proportionate share, $4,-
| 500 Of the costs in the courts. Will
liam Lanahan & Sons are charged
up with $23,563.46, although their
claims against the State was only
$5,916.54. The commission went
back of the dates represented by this
firms accounts in the claims against
] the State, as did the commission in
a number of other cases.
Fleischmann & Co. and Gerson,
| Seligman Company are treated as
one concern, and the $4,000 claim
is reduced to s45,64530. This COM
pany admitted orercharges in Aida
Wits. Clark Brothers e Co.. another
! large claimant, are given $53,780.96
on claim of s66.3S3.71.
Carolina Glnss Claim.
The commission in its special re-
port in the claim of the Carolina
Glass Company finds that "the of1ic-
ers of this concern entered into a
conspiracy to defraud the State of
South Carolina by defeating all com-
petition in the sale Of glassware
needed" The commission refers to
bid of the company in September,
1902, to furnish SO cars of glass
bottles at prices ranging about 10
per cent in excess of the prices paid
to Flaccus G. Co.. Notwithstanding
the fact that other bids were filed
That also the Flaccus contract, when
purchased, was for the purpose OF
stiffling competition, rs all moulds
of the Fiaccus Company were turned
over to the Carolina Glass Company
and the former had no facilities for
| filing orders