The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1916-02-02

cedent. he could have removed every
sheriff, in fact, every officer elected by
the people, filling their places with his
own satellites and thus destroy the
rights of the people to choose their
public servants.
1 come now to the third glaring vio-
lation Of the law. In the fixing of the
salary of the superintendent of the
hospital for the insane, article s. Sec
ton "a, of the constitution reads: "Au
officers other than those named in
section 9 provided for in this article
shall receive for their services such
compensation as the general assem-
bly, may from time to time by law
direct" The general assembly had
fixed this salary at $4,000. In the be-
ginning, his excellency had secured
the services of a physician of nation
wide reputation as a healer of the
mentally afflicted. He not being a
citizen Of this State. under the consti.
tuition could not be appointed.
Next we hear that the present in
cumbent had been appointed at dou-
ole the salary fixed by law, his ex-
cellency pledging himself personally
for this extra compensation, should
the general assembly not make the
necessary appropriation. Some mild
protest to this illegal procedure was
voiced through the press of the State
SD that his excellency in his address
to the general assembly on January
IA beats a retreat. Stating that he
does not ask the general assembly to
reimburse him for this extra compen-
sation paid, but that the present in
cumbent's commission will expire
February 15, so that if the general
assembly wishes to retain the services
Of this prominently capable SUPER
intendent it can fix his salary ac-
cordingly. Permit me to ask If you
ever heard Of a man being appointed
to such position for so short a.
time? Has not an alienist from an
other State been employed as assist
ant superintendent, at salary OF So
900? If the present superintendent
Is so preeminently qualified for this
position, why was it necessary to en-
ploy an assistant. and place him in
charge of this most important depart
ment? Would it not have been bet
ter for the prominently qualified
superintendent to have personal
charge Of this department and to have
employed a competent business man
as assistant and placed him in charge
of the executive branch? trust you
understand I have nothing against
the present superintendent. would
view the matter in this light were he
my dearest friend.
His excellency is disengenuous, to
say the least, when he attempts to
show that the raise in salary is com.
paratively small. In speaking Of the
perquisites that the present incum.
bent does not receive he says that the
superintendent had the use OF a
house. Is not the house still there
and does the State receive rental for
the same? He was furnished lights.
water, fuel. Does not the State pay a
lump sum for water for all it's insti-,
tutions? He was furnished yegeta-
bles. Did the State receive remunera-
ton for the vegetables the present in
cumbent did not consume? He was
furnished servants from the institu-
ton. Are not those servants still
there without extra cost to the State?
He was furnished carriage and pair
OF horses. Have these been sold and
the proceeds turned into the treasury?
He was furnished an automobile. Has
1T been disposed of in like manner?
II these questions can not be answer
ed in the affirmative, wherein has the
saving in perquisites benefited the
State?
have we not a statute the sub.
stance of which is as follows: eff any
person or persons bargain for the
purchase or sale of any office, or re-
ceive any money, fee, reward or 9TH
er profit or take any promise or
assurance for the payment of
any money. fee, reward, or other
profit, for any Office he shall be ad-
judged a disabled person. in law, to
nave occupy and enjoy the said Of
fice." If such is the case, is not the
present superintendent disqualified
under the law?
Lowndes Browing.
TYnfon