The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1911-02-22


per to set it's reply before the public.
While the Item holds itself free TO
criticise public officials when circum-
stances and the public good demand
criticism. it has never yet denied the
use of its columns to the ofIicia' or in
dividual criticised when he desired to
make reply To the criticism or to de.
fcnd his acts or conduct.
The Item charged that sthe prop
er efforts were not made to arrest
j. w. Harper. and facts of common
knowledge sustantiated the correct
ness of this charge. 1t was known
that he was in town and had been in
consultation with attorneys who rep
resented him at the Coroners inquest,
but If his house was ever searched or
kept uader surveillance that fact has
| never been reported. 1t has since be-
come known that he was in his home
and remained there unmolested until
he got ready to hire a buggy and drive
to a nearby railroad station and take
the train for parts unknown. The
| nearest approach to an attempt to ar
rest him was when a policeman in
quired at the door whether Mr.. Har-
per was at home, and when informed
that he was not, although then In the
house. no further effort was made to
arrest him in case he should visit his
house or leave it. So much for this
phase of the Sheriff's letter, which
itself confesses that the Sheriff's Of
flee was relying upon the police force
OF the city to capture Harper-a duty
that the law devolves upon the Sher-
in.
In respect to the publication of the
Governors proclamation Offering q
reward for the capture of Harper, il
was stated in this paper that it had
been customary for many years to
publish these proclamations i'm all
the papers, and this is "a fact. All
the proclamations the writer has seen
were sent to the Sheriff with instruc-
tion to publish in at least one county
newspaper. and heretofore the present
Sheriff and his predecessors have pub
lished the proclamations in all the
papers. and the Governor has paid
the bills without question. The Sher-
in was not criticised so much for not
publishing the proclamation in the
! Item. as he has been accustomed to
do. but for Withholding publication
for three or more days until he could
get II published in anoth. paper that
had not criticised his office.
AS to the matter of serving a war
rant turned over TO the Sheriff's office
by Magistrate Wells; again the Sheriff
condemns himself by his own words.
Suppose the law does prescribe a whole
lot Of red tape respecting the pay
ment OF the Sheriffs fees for serving
Magistrates warrant, is that a valid
excuse for he Sheriff to sit placidly
In his office. refusing to serve the war
! rant for g. desperate criminal, who
shot and seriously wounded man
and had terrorized a crowd? Is the
| collection Of fees more important TO
the Sheriff than the arrest Of a would
be-murderer? What If Magistrate
Wells had been derelict in properly
certifying the warrant so the Sheriff
could have an iron clad cinch On the
extra fees? Is it proper for the High
| Sheriff and his deputies to sit tight
in their office in the Court House
while the criminal makes good his es-
cape? 1t does seem that a jealous
| and energetic sheriff who draws a
regular salary of $3.50 month and
various and sundry fees, could forego
the certainty of few dollars of ad-
| ditlonal fees rather than let a GRIM
inal escape while ne is pickering with
the magistrate who issued the war
| rant. When the magistrate neglects
or refuses to perform his duty, it is
all the more necessary that the sher-
iff, the highest peace Office Of the coun-
| ty perform the full duty he owes the
| public. IL is for conduct such as
this that the Sheriff's office has been
and is bciag criticised, not only by
The Daily Item. but by the public
generally.
| III the LEGISLATURE apprODriated A