The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1912-02-14

SVEN JACK 10 tnem and all OF it in
the name of the State Of South Caro-
lina," is untrue in so far as it states
that money was paid for immunity
and the money paid back, and the
governor can not offer any evidence
to substantiate the truth of this
statement.
1t IL likewise untrue that preiudic-
ed political and personal enemies at
tempted to heap humiliation on this
man. and while the governor NAV he
satisfied that because OF a personal
difficulty with one Of the State off,
GERS Of this State that this man was
made scapegoat Of the entire dis
pensary regime" this statement is
also without color Of truth.
The governor says: Somebody
must be punished to save some peo-
Pies political reputation; a convic-
ton must be had; who shall it be {?
OF course. the man who cursed the
learned attorney general to his face
upon the street. and it was not per-
sonally resented" No person Of
reasonably fair mind will believe
that jury Of IL men Of Chester, with
whom l was not personally acquaint-
ed. would wilfully prejure themselves
to crafty any personal Ill will I may
have had towards this defendant, and
In this connection will say that am
conscious OF no personal Ill will to-
wards the defendant, as have never,
under any circumstances, had a per-
sonal transaction with him. 1t is true
that the defendant while 1 was per-
corning my duty as a member Of the
legislative investigating committee,
did. while In company with one whom
Il have since been informed is a
brother, threaten and offer to do me
personal violence because his conduct
as a dispensary official was being
probed, and that he did on that oc-
casion use language which would
have been offensive had it come from
one not similarly circumstanced. Still
have never thought It necessary for
the defense Of my honor to engage in
physical encounters with any Of those
who were offended by reason OF ex-
posture, or impending exposure
through my activities in investigating
their conduct as dispensary officials.
1t Is probable that this defendant. to-
gether with many. If not all dispen-
sary grafters. bear i'll will towards
me, still I am confident that the law
abiding people Of the State will es-
teem me no less for the enemie. I
have made.
The governor asks: why was the
case transferred to Chester; why left
there; why was it not tried in Colum-
bia, or in the same circuit, at Ker-
shaw, or If 1t must be the Sixth cir
cult, why not at Lancaster or Fair
field or York; why was it absolutely
necessary to go to Chester; why
was 1t necessary to try it at that par
ticular court, by specially picked and
appointed attorney to. preside?" The
questions contains an untrue state
ment The case was not transferred
to Chester; it was commenced there
originally 1t was not brought in CO.
lumbia because one jury had acquitted
Farnum on substantially the same
charge and evidence to which he
plead guilty after his acquittal. And
further, another jury had one Of the
dispensary graft cases withdrawn by
the judge, because his instructions
were disregarded. Other reasons
which are not susceptible Of proof in
duced the wish to try the case in a
county other than Richland The case
was not tried in Kershaw for the very
good reason that the Kershaw court
"'u ho JURISDICTION 10 try ii, there be-
ing no evidence that any part of the
oifensc was committed in that county.
The same is true as to Lancaster.
Fairfield and York. 1t was necessary
to try the case in Chester because the
crime was committed there, and that
court had jurisdiction. If for any
reason conditions in Chester were
such that the defendant could not
nave a fair trial there, he had the
right to move the court to transfer
the case TO some other county in the
circuit. but no such motion was made
or suggested. The case would have
been tried before Judge Shipp at the
June term Of the Chester court. but