Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1911-03-03

Il Il
which they hope to net the state
many thousands Of dollars.
| Further replying, we will say that
lin October, 1907, a restraining order
was granted by the circuit court OF
the United States in the Garrett case,
which was the beginning Of a long
series Of distractions interposed by
alleged creditors to the action OF the
commission in requiring an honest
accounting by the claimants Of such
transactions as were fraudulently en-
tered into between them and the for
mer state officers. See report Of at
torney general for year 1908, page B..
That this was followed by further re-
straining orders in January. 1908, and
1.-THE Appointment Of receivers by the
circuit court Of the United States. An
appeal to the circuit court Of appeals
OF the United States was necessary to
protect the rights and interest OF the
state. This appeal was heard In May.
1908, with the chief justice Of the
United States presiding and the judg-
ment of the circuit court OF the
United States was affirmed by an
opinion filed in September, 1908. This
necessitated carrying the case to the
United States supreme court, where
1t was argued in February and March,
1909, and decided in favor Of the
state in April 1909, but the mandate
was not sent down until the latter
part Of May. 1909. when the commits
sion again became free to proceed
with its business.
The commission promptly after ap-
pointment had the books and ac-
counts Of the dispensary audited, an
inventory made Of the stock OF goods
on hand, disposed Of the goods on
hand as rapidly as the county dis
pensaries would take them, and
promptly collected from the county
dispensaries therefor; and as soon as
the United States supreme court dis
solved the injunction. they proceeded
to adjudicate the amounts due credit
tors as rapidly as 1t could be done.
having due regard to the rights OF
the state. That amounts Of such
claims as were adjudicated to be cor
rect were paid. That hearings were
had and such proceedings taken as
were necessary to unravel the net
work of fraud which surrounded
very large proportion of the said
claims. The legislature in 1908 pass
ed an act directing them to continue
their work; this was followed by
further act in 1910, all Of which d.
rected further and necessary pro-
ceedings to be taken to conserve the
interests of the state. Pursuant to
the mandate Of the said acts, this
commission proceeded until 1t has
now, with the exception Of a few
items, concluded all matters which
were involved in winding up the af-
fairs Of said institution. These acts
imposed additional duties upon this
commission, the discharge Of which
in a proper manner has necessitated
their continued activities, and they
have been diligently endeavoring, and
to a considerable extent successfully,
Hereunder to recover moneys ille-
gally collected from the state by va
rious parties who had no claims
against the state when this commits
sion was appointed. Among these
claims of the state still pending Is
a claim against the Richland Distill-
ing company and certain stockhold-
ers Of the said company. Since the
first day Of January, 1911, the La
bility Of two Of these stockholders
was settled for the sum Of s34,7OO.
The commission Is now pressing the
company and the other stockholders
for a settlement Of the balance or
the amount claimed to be due the
state and are convinced that with
due diligence and sufficient time they
will be able to collect largely on this
claim, which Is being pressed under
the provisions Of the act Of 1910.
This work as we'll as the endeavor to
collect other pending claims as d.
rected by the act of 1910 is very diff
ficult and tedious, and the commission
earnestly solicits your counsel and
cooperation in order that this work
may be facilitated and that the COM
mission conclude its duties at the ear
liest possible moment.
They would further state that while
in the discharge Of their duties under
the act of 1910 suit for injunction
was brought against them by the
Carolina Glass company and an ap-
peal was also prosecuted by 1t from
the decision rendered by the commits
sion on it's claim against the state,
which proceedings had the effect OF
further delaying the commission In
finishing their work. Both Of these
cases have been decided in our state
supreme court in favor Of the COM
mission. but the commission has been
notified by the attorneys Of said COM
pany that they propose to carry the
matter to the supreme court OF the
United States. The commission are
defendants and have no means of end
ing these proceedings until the ap-
peal Is determined by proper judg-
ment, either of affirmance or dismiss
sal.
The commission has endeavored to
furnish the information asked for In
your letter, but II anything has been
omitted, or If you desire any other
or further information in reference
to the acts and doings Of the COM
mission in winding up the affairs OF
the dispensary. the chairman Is In
structed to furnish you with the same:
and II you do not understand any OF
the items or statements in the reports
and accounts heretofore filed In your
office. the chairman, with the COM
missions accountant upon your sug-
gestion, will go over each Item there
Of in detail with you.
All Of which Is respectfully sub
mitted, w. j. Murray,
Chairman State Dispensary Commis-
sion.