The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1910-01-26

4 Few days ago. my attention was
called 70 ~ article in The State, under
the caption, Greetings OF Glass Comp
any" in which this paid attorney, Ly-
les. seeks TO malign and SANDER me
through the press.
enclose you copy OF NY letter OF
january 18th, 20 y. E. Gonzales. Pre-
iden. OF the State Company, Columbia,
5. c. and up 20 the preSen, tine. they
have failed to publish this letter. send
i, 70 you with the above explanation aod
ask that YOU publish it in your paper.
THE MANNING TINES providing the
Columbia State have not seen tit 20 pub
l!sh it in full up to the time this reach
es YOU
During the investigation. remember
tha, i; was stated tha, 30, 900 worth o.:
stock in the Carolina Glass Company was
owued ov some OF the State people. just
who do no; know. Go feel. however.
tha: in Is much aS the ). {. Stale have
seen 1T 70 publish THIS Lander and have
refused 10 publish letters from me be-
fore ,ha: | am well within my rights in
sSkias YOU 20 give my letter full pub
lcity. Thaukin" you IN advance. re-
, main. ours very truly.
GEORGE II. PACkH.aM. SR-
copy.
Baltimore. Md. January 18th. 1910.
\ :. Gonzales. PRESIDENT The State
Company. Columbia. S. {.
Dear ir:-Mv attention has lately
been called 20 ~ article in The State
OF about December 2233rd.. or 18th. 1909,
un6er the caption. Greetings OF Glass
Company, il which one ". II. Lvies.
paid attorney for the Carolina Glass
| Company. seeks 20 ,nalign. SANDER aod
; miSrepreSept me through the press,
wherein be states in his appeal from the
! iadsmen. OF the winding-up Comrnis-
sioa 10 the Supreme Court OF South Car
iol:na. aS one reason for making ccn-
| plaint against the t!ud!rgS OF said COM
mission. rs follows:
! - Because, n considering the said
claim the said commissioners consider
| ed the testimony o! one George h. Pack
ham. the testimony in its nature being
such rs not 10 b. relevant 10 tie i>sucs
! in question. and the said claimant not
having had 81 opportunity before said
| Investigating committee 10 establish, oy
! d!Sinterested witnesses. no, only The IL
validity OF the testimony o. the said
packham in every particular, but that
he himself was i person unworthy o!
| belief.
In as much as you have given great
! publicly 70 this charge, ask that NY
denia. OF same be given the same pub
llci,y.
/, IS matter OF record tha, while
was on the stand for three or four days
during the DiSpensary Investigation,
,ha: this ". e. LyleS bad full oppor'
| ,uni,y 20 diScredi, my testimony and did
a,temp, 10 dlScreGit same, bu: the at
temp, resulted in boomerang. The IT,
veS,iga,iag Committee not only bel!ev-
ed my testimony, but the Legislature
iac;icI on my testimony: cancelled az
order for 800 car loads OF bottles that
the Directors OF the DiSpensary had or.
dered OF the Carolina Glass Company.
! They 10, onlv cancelled the order. but
! thev black listed the Ca:ciica Glass
| Company ard advertised for new oidS
+. The writer bid sor this contract aod
he bid from ) 10 10 cealS per gross low
er fer This contract than the prices he
! quoted when on the stand as being reas-
onabie prices and notwithstanding The
! fact. the Cacolica Glass Company, 10
their testimony during the inresiiga-
ton, claimed that ,he prices that quot
/ ed when Oh the stand were fictitious and
that the goods could not be sold for the
monev and that the prices they charged
the diSpensary OF the SOC car contract
were as low rs the goods could be sold
at tleaving but small MARCIA OF profit.
=! Wnen the new bids were opened. while
our prices as said before were ) 20 10
cents per gross lower than ! Gao.ed
when OF the s,and. the Carolina Class
! Company suddenly dropped IN price
about 81 90 per gross q iew cents per
/ gross less than the writers b!d) ard not
wi,hS,andiug the fac: they were black
| listed. the new beard o! three Comm:S-
sicaerS tRawlioson. Wiley aod Back. ]
awarded the contrac: again Ia Them.
| Does rot this ACT OF ;heir par. prove
coucluSire!y iha; my testimony w:sS cor
rect, acd does i: not sh"w that when The
Carolica Glass Company thought tsev
had 20 competitive bidders, they ROB
; bed the South Carolina State D:Spen>arv
! By char.io. these eXorbi:ao: prices
| the Caro!ioa Glass Company, through
| this same W. E. LyleS, >mployed detec-
| ,iveS from Atlanta. Ga. and attorneys
! srom Coiumbia. S. c., 10 visit my fac
tory. Wi!iia,nS;own. y. J.. AID my hcnc.
Baltimore, M. 70 ge, my personal rec
iord, ADD ism i; reasonable 70 suppose
that had they ioucd aov,hios 10 ny dis
credit they would have used it? In fact,
Attorney General Lyon, challenged
them 70 90 into ny private record from
start TO finish. they did not attempt 20
do this. but now this man LyleS, usio-
wha, he assumes as his ight, THE right
OF paid attorney seeks 20 mal!Sn me
in the press.
L, is also matte, OF public record
that ;hiS contrac: that VS. cancelled
by the legislature, was again awarded
, 10 the Carolina Class Co. u. :. Savim.
OF 500. 900 20 the South Carolina D:Speu-
say aac | am pleased 20 STAT: that
some South Caro!iaianS (reaci:S be-
tween ,he lineS) have seen FL 10 not
only approach me and congratulate me-
for the money saved the South Caro-
lima D:spen>ary. but also an in re-
ceipt OF Z letter dated January llth,
from prominent South Caroliniau in
which he states:
II the ;indiuSs OF the wind-up Com
mission stands, your testimony saved
the State $50, 600 on one contract which
was cancelled on your testimony and
| bought for 500, 900 less and 80. 900 de-
duction ty the wiad-Gp Commission or
total of Slll.0oG. regard it the
greatest work of your lie and your
services will be referred 20 and spoken
o: with appreciation whenever the
graf, and corruption OF the GiSpen,ary
is discussed around the tiresid-S OF the
homes io South Carolina.
sincerely hope that the Supreme
Court Will reverse the w!Id-up Com
| missions findings and sead the case
| back TO the Commission for additional
testimony and ii this should happen.
and am requested by ,he Commission
20 testify. will do so and have | 70
4