The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1912-06-19
GRAFT IN CHARLESTON.
it"irat~ thc thar9r That Di>pcn-arN
Con-tabic> are Grading in Charles
Traced to Charleston. Has some
thing 10 say About Local Graflc,-.

Charleston Common ~cn.c.
The statemcnt published in IN 50
! columns charging wholesale gran by
! the constablcs. in the "enforeccmen."
, OF The dispensary law in Charleston
seems 10 have stirred up a hornets
nest throughout the state. The fur
ther statement that we have traced
this graft practically" up To the GOV
ernor himself" has met descrVedly
With tremendous interest and has
elected from the Governor a rather
caustic if indeed irrelevant. denial.
! coupled with some biting cpithets. 1t
/ will he noted, however, that what the
Governor says is that anyone who
stated that he, Blease, had received
graft from Charleston blind tigers
was Il coward and liar" This is nol
10 the point 1t is non sequitur.
! Upon it there can be no issue between
! the Governor and Us. II W. had COM
petent proof 10 show that me Cover
nor did himself, in proper person, re
ceiVe" this graft, our readers may rest
assured that We would say it. But
we have made no such claim. What
We have said, and can abundantly
prove. is that the copstables here in
Charleston nave received" it, More
over. we say now, weighing our
words we'll. that not only have they
! received it. but that the first thing
they did when sent TO Charleston was
! To organize a perfeCt system Of graft:
| th3t in one first stroke they made a
lunr collection Of a large amount,
and that ever since, they have been
e>acting and collecting, according 10
! the volume of business done, a stated
Sum at fixed intervals; and that these
actions have been coincident with the
, comings and going Of certain persons
and pcrsonages whose movements
point with utmost circumstantiality
To our conclusions that the graft is
traced practically to the Governor
4
collection are SO clear and the con-
ditions are so convincing that we
! have for ourselves reached moral
conviction in the matter. Upon the
same character of evidence we would
under oath find guilty a person accus-
ed Of murder. Whether or not the
| T,o,- o;t,
different conclusion from our own re-
mains to be seen.
And now let me drop into those
matters which are little personal.
1t seems to be the conventional thing
in journalism to do everything behind
| the editorial I'VE" Views are put
forth characters blackened. infamous
lihels and malicious lies propagated
under the all-embracing impersonal-
personal pronoun, first person. plural
number. We" has covered a multi
tude of sins. 1t has also afforded
safety against just and unjust ply
sical attack, and if it has sent brave
men to, it has as often saved cowardly
writer's from, untimely graves. 1t is
all very nice and all very conventional.
But somehow or other it seems TO us
to be an evasion. When articles
amount To nothing more than an i'm
personal view of impersonal topics,
nothing is to be gained and a great
deal Of egotism to be lost, perhaps,
in the dsuse of the pronoun T." But
inasmuch as the mission of this paper
is the eradication of evil in govern
ment, and as most evil in government
arises through the corruption Of men;
and as it is necessary in proving the
corruption Of men to come down from
glittering generalitieS TO specific
charges. l feel that it would be TN
wise and manifestly unjust if for an
lineer around the authorship of these
articles, or if not always the actual
authorship, at least the inspiration
They are by John =. Grace, AMI
whatever he asserts he is ready 10
prove or take the consequences. He
says this because only within the last
week certain thieves and thugs who
receive moral encouragement from
men higher up are said to have made
threats against his life fer articles
appearing herein. For them he has
but utter contempt. No doubt there
are those who would like something
counselling no restraint TO the no.
toriouS murdercrs and highwaymen
who need perhaps but word To do
| 1 iL.l., L, ,i.. 81. l.. L.; |.