The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1917-02-13


IS al u44e.Iu.-ent TO iuat at.
vi. H. -. ,.olse, o. ounte., opposed
,..5 Mu.le a.nelIument. tie salu that
u,e.a,tIuu had been that the
.ul..n. y. ~o.h itqulre- Oh t.ie IL
1 .onl.-.osioAe! not onIy d.
i've. (. matter OF justice, THAI
&c ,.Iu III le-e.,e i.-e r. eoent oaldf1 :
:. ...c I.i.~..c4d. tOnulon OF the
.....,....u .......4;. ;.--it tie salary
.l.ou4u &c uouD.el.
Aichey Economical.
81. \. II. 4>lclic5, ~, Vi LaI-eHs'
40, see any reason Why tn "a
.an>e commissioner should Nu
u4ule .l:.n tie State treasurer, wno
a..u-o- a., the funds OF the Stal~'
Az. lie was in favor OF the reduction,
Belry for Full Measure.
Mr.. j. A. berry, OF Orangeburs,
agreed with Mr.. Noise. If there was
enc official who had made good he
urged, it was Commissioner McMaste:
and as a result of his work millions
OF dollars had been brought into
South carolina and invested at low
rates of interest. The Insurance CON-
missioner we'll deserved the salary no
was receiving, he urged.
Mauldin Likewise.
Mr.. Oscar K Mauluin, Of Green
vile, opposed a reduction in the sai-
ary. He considered Mr.. McMaster one
of the best officials in the State ana
the speaker said he was in favor OF
a wise expenditure OF. money which
would bring results.
Davis, Too.
Mr.. James E. Davis, Of BarnWell,
opposed reduction in the amount OF
salary. The work was more thah
worth the amount paid, he urged, ana
to reduce the salary would be the real
discrimination, he said.
Mr.. Paul B. Ellis, Of Greenwood,
moved the previous question, shutting
OFF further debate.
No Salary Reduction.
The ayes and nays were demanded.
The result of the vote was as fol-
lows:
In favor of the Moore amendment,
to reduce the salary to s1,900-52.
Against the Moore motion and III
favor of leaving the salary at S2,5Ot
81.
BY a majority Of nine the house,
therefore, refused to reduce the salary
of the insurance commissioner.
State Treasurer's Turn.
Section 6, providing for an appro-
priation Of $4,000 for the State treas
urers Office was then taken up.
Mr.. Allan McFarlan, of Chester
field, wanted to eliminate the item
Of $500 for the salary of second
bookkeeper.
Mr.. Cothran said that the total
amount was not in excess Of that ap-
propriated last year, and urged \. the
necessity for an additional clerk IN
the office.
Part WOrk-Less Pay.
Mr. Marfarlar said he understood
tie State treas .er was president Of
a bank, "to which he gave more time
than he did to the States business
and he cid not want to furnish the
State treasurer with clerk in order
to ALLOW the treasurer to attend to
private business affairs instead of al
tending to public business.
Treasurer Never In.
Mr.. John R. Hamblin, of Union,
said that when one went to the treas
rrer's Office to see the treasurer, that
official was rcvor in, and he thought
if Mr.. Carter woul" stay in the office
no second bookkeeper" would be
needed
Treasurer Efficient.
Mr.. Morris c. Lumpkin, Of Rich
land, and Mr.. J Wesley Crum, Jr.,
of Bamberg, urged that all this mat
ter had been threshed out in the CAM
paign last summer when Treasurer
Carter was reelected; that Mr. Car
ter was an efficient officer, and that
the item ought to be retained in the
bill
Defends Treasurer.
Mr.. C. S. Ford, Of Fairfield, did NOT
think such charges ought to be made
against man when he was not pres
ent and had no opportunity to reply.
Mr.. H. P. Fulmer, OF Orangeburg,
wanted to cut out the item. He felt
that it was not necessary at this time
and that the present force could look
alter the duties of the office, he said.
Mr.. r. P Searson, Jr., of BarnWell,
said the people had endorsed Treas
urer Carter last summer. The people
were satisfied with the manner in
which the office had been conducted,
he argued, and he moved the previous
question, which was carried, and fur
ther debate was cut of.
The amendment proposed by Mr..
Paul B. Ellis, of Greenwood. to re-
~ fD