Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1910-05-13
FRIDAY, MAY 13, 1910.

Watson. Senator Tillman was present.
and the only remark that he made
was when nominations were in order
for the office Of secretary. He only
said, Il nominate our commissioner Of
agriculture as secretary of this confer
ence, for Mr.. Watson is a man who
never forgets anything" Not only
were the men present who know aBri-
culture from book standpoint, but A.
ID. Hudson, the president OF the South
Carolina Corn Breeders association
was here, and he was the only real til
Ter of the soil.
- Columbia special of May 10, to the
News and Courier: In an argument
before the supreme court today, Sena-
tor r. /. Rogers, of Marlboro county,
said that the pendulum has swung
around now. and that juries, moved by
a popular clamor, are too frequently
convicting persons on trial. Ten
years ago." said Senator Rogers, "a
man guilty. under the law, of murder
would sometimes be convicted OF man.
slaughter and one guilty Of man.
slaughter might go unpunished. But
today it is the other extreme. Juries
are moved by a popular clamor that
makes them convict where there is no
evidence to sustain the verdict" Sem
ator Rogers claimed that this condi-
ton is due 10 the press Of the state.
He said that the sentiment has been
created for convictions, and juries are
moved by II That, the press Of the
state, moved by some powerful mo-
tive" Is creating this sentiment Sem
ator Rogers referred to the Carmack
case, and to the conviction of the
Coopers in this trial. This obiter die
tum by Senator Rogers was brought
about by the closing words In his writ
ten argument: Shall juries be allowed
to disregard law and facts? Or shall
presiding judges be given an unbridled
latitude in the exercise Of that dis
cretion reposed In them for wise and
salutary purpose-submitting differ
ences to a jury or popular clamor for
a sound legal discretion?" The re-
marks of Senator Rogers were In ref
| erence to the case of French Revels,
who, upon trial for murder in Marl-
boro county, was convicted C involun-
tary manslaughter and was sentenced
to two years in the penitentiary. Sen
ator Rogers claimed that there was no
evidence to support this verdict, that
the man whom Revels killed had been
killed by his own negligence in the
struggle over the possession Of
the gun that Revels held, according to
the testimony There were only two
none by the defence. Revels had said
that he was going to break up the
crowd that was out in the yard, this
happening at a supper given by him
and his brother-in-law, who was the
man killed. Afterwards Revels, ac-
cording to witness, had said that he
was not looking for trouble and would
not hurt anyone. He had not return
ed to the yard. but as he was coming
through the hall the encounter with
the dead name came and Jacobs was
killed. Revels was held for the mur-
der The questions raised by Senator
Rogers were also unique in other re-
spects, one point being that the jury
did not understand what involuntary
manslaughter' carried, that according
to statements made by some members
of the jury afterwards, the jury must
have thought that this was very friv-
olous crime, and that 1t would not car
ry the sentence of unqualified man.
slaughter. Revels was let out on $500
bond pending the appeal. This was
mentioned at the hearing today to
show that Judge Klugh. who tried the
case must have thought that the case
was not very strong against Revels.
The record shows that the solicitor, Mr.
Spear, asked only verdict Of involun-
tary manslaughter.