The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1918-02-09

SOM anyway
In reference to the question of a
lobby" Mr.. Richardson said that he
and his friends, being interested in
the game warden bill, thought that
they, as citizens of South Carolina,
had perfect right to approach the
members of the general assembly and
discuss the measure with them. Il
submit to you that in the matter Of
a bold lobby" said the former chief
game warden, that maintained by
Governor Manning, his private secre-
tary and others cannot be surpassed
by any lobby I have ever witnessed
In the South Carolina general assem-
bly," Mr.. Richardson further asserted
that Governor Manning had the ma
jOrity of the members Of the general
assembly in his Office and pressed
them to oppose the game warden bill.
He declared that Capt. M. c. Lumpkin,
former member of the house, had
told him that the governor had had
Capt Lumpkin in the executive Of
flee and had offered him a place on
the judiciary committee of the house
as bait to work against the game
warden measure. In this connection
he stated that if the judiciary COM
mittee Of the senate had ever passed
a resolution asking that the headquar-
ters of the alleged Richardson lobby
be removed from the committee room
he had not been advised of it.
Mr.. Richardson said that he had
turned $i0,592.5O into the State treas
ury on December 81, 1915, for the
schools OF the State, as shown in his
annual report for that year, instead
OF the $4,000, as stated by the gov
ernor in his veto message. In com.
batting the charge of extravaganza.
the former chief game watden said
that his report showed that his thirty
two game wardens received an aver
age of 1851 per month for their SER
vices and $11.40 for travelling ex.
penses; that he had frequently com.
planned that his subordinates were
not receiving enough remuneration.
He said that he had exceeded the ST.
600 set by law as the maximum 70,
his travelling expenses by $264.54 on
the advice of the attorney general
who told him he could draw on the
game protection fund for this over
plus. The increase was necessitated
In 1916 by Is new counties coming
under the game protection law. he
said. The s1,59S.41 automobile hire
complained of by the governor in his
veto message. he explained, was au-
tomobile and boat hire for his assist.
ants, and not his own, as claimed
The item of $1S4 for 'incidentals'
does not appear on his books under
any such classification, he asserted, as
he did not charge anything to "inci.
dentals"; the classification was made
that way by w. w. Bradley, forme.
auditor for the State bank examiner
The question of the 1916 rent foI
his office not being paid was correct,
said Mr.. Richardson, who added that
the legislature cut out this appropria.
ton for Office rent and it had to be
paid out OF the game protection fund
which was not done because Mr..
Gibbes succeeded him in office before
the payment could be made. He
stated that the item Of $1,405.9O fol
gasoline complained Of by the govern
or was paid for by his personal check
In comparing expenses Mr.. Rich
ardson said that Mr.. Gibbes' report
showed that the present chief game
warden had expended $155 a month
FOR automobile hire and that Mr..
Richardson had only averaged $133
month for both automobile and boat
hire. Mr.. Richardson said that he
had compromised the case of Samuel
Murray and wife who were arrested
for hunting in Beaufort county with.
out license, for 500 each, when Mr.
Murray explained that he was on his
wedding tour and desired to spare his
wife the embarrassment of appearing
before a magistrate. The compromise
was effected by Game Warden Fun.
derbunk, who talked to Mr.. Richard
son. who was in Columbia, over tho
long distance telephone. The Alfred
Aiken case was never called to his ,t-
tention. declared the former cbier
game warden.
In the case OF DR.. Jervey. Mr.
Richardson said that he was arrested
py j. X. Little, game warden, but tina,