The Anderson intelligencer. (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, October 13, 1870, Image 1

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

lift Independent Family Journal?Devoted to Politics, Literature and General Intelligence. HOYT & CO., Proprietors. nub ANDERSON C. H., S. C, THURSDAY MORNING, OCTOBER 13, 1870. VOLUME 6?NO. 16. TAX PAYERS, READ. ADDRESS OF WES. CONNER AT CAHDEN. A Dispassionate and Lucid Review of the Fi? nancial History of Scott's Administration. Front the Charleston New*. Camdeh, S. CLj October 3. According to appointment, a mass meeting of the Union Reform party was held at this place to-day. The notice of the meeting was short, and the weather on Saturday and yester? day was wet and uncomfortable. This morn? ing, however, the skies cleared?a happy omen ?and by 12 o'clock the Courthouse was filled by an attentive audience, representing both races and the capital and labor of the county. The meeting was called to order, and Col. Z. Leitner elected chairman. The chairman then introduced General James Conner, who deliv? ered the following address, in review of the .financial history of the Scott administration. The address was listened to with deep atten? tion, and produced a marked effect. General Conner said: SPEECH OF GENERAL CONNER. Is the State prospering ? If States or indi? viduals spend more than they make, if they live on their capital instead of their income, they are on the high road to ruin. The Re? publican leaders are fully aware that the salva? tion of their party depends upon the financial exhibit which they can make, and Mr. Cham? berlain, their attorney-general and ablest man, has undertaken to show that their administra? tion has been prudent and economical. The importance of the subject and Mr. Chamber? lain's party zeal and personal ability are guar? antees that nothing has been omitted from his speech. It has been published as a campaign document, and we may safely accept it as the strongest presentation of the case that can be made. Prior to the war our taxation was light, was hardly felt. It has increased more than three? fold since Governor Scott assumed control of | the State. On page 46 of the comptroller's report for 1859, will be found a statement of J the taxes paid for the previous ten years by each district or parish, and the average amount of annual taxes is $431,899. During the vear 1869, the amount of taxes paid by the State was $4,122,690 68. Of this amount $2,622,690 68 was the United States tax (Governor Scott's message p. 4,) $1,000,000 was tax assessed for State purposes, exclusive of I poll tax, and $500,000 was the tax for county purposes. (Auditor Tomlinson's Report, p. The entire State debt, when Governor Scott assumed control, was, according to Mr. Cham? berlain, $4,934,849 17. Thus, in the first year of Governor Scott's administration, a sum near? ly equal to the entire debt; was levied on the State. Over the United States tax Governor Scott could, of course, exercise lao control. No one holds him responsible for that, but it was his duty, and that of his party, to use the utmost economy, and make the appropriations for State purposes as small as possibile, in order to lighten the weight of the burden imposed upon the State. Governor Orr, in his message prepared for the called session of the .Legislature in 1868, says: "If the taxes of the present year proved oppressive to all branches of industry in the State and yielded but $375,000, the expendi? tures of the next year should, if possible, be curtailed by the reduction of salaries and oth? erwise, so as not to exceed that sum, exclusive of interest on the public debt," (page 9.) Gov? ernor Orr is regarded by the Republican party as the ablest statesman of the State, as wise, sound and practical. He is an authority for whom they profess unbounded respect. He spoke from a long experience of the State and its resources, and his earnest advice was to practice economy. How was the advice heeded ? In 1868 the appropriations for State expenses were....._._.-$1,360,300 00 The county tax was (Mr. Chamberlain's esti tlmste)_._....500,000 00 Total in 1868_.-._81,860,300 00 In 1869 the appropriations for State expenses were.-..$1,071,169 00 The county tax was._.? 500,000 00 Total in 1869. 1,571,169 00 Total in 1868-'69.-. $3,431,469 00 On the other hand? The appropriations for State ex? penses in 1858 was.. 495,170 00 Add police assessment. 189,707 78 684,877 78 The appropriations for 6tat? expenses in 1859 was._644,730 Add-police assessment-222,000 Total In 1859..- 866,730 00 Total in 1858-'59.-. $1,551,607 78 Excess in 1868-'69 over 1858 '?-.-. $1,879,861 22 A comparative view of the appropriations for the years 1858 and 1868, and for 1859 and .1869, will show more clearly the sources of expendi? tures: 1858 1S68 Execntlte. 5,250 00 40,700 Legislative, Regular Session- 51,950 00 140,000 LegMative, Extra session... 130,000? 270,00 Judicial-......-. 40,300 00 ?3,000 Treasury.- 7,350 00 Educational. 145,100 00 76,800 CirU._.?.- 97,800 00 218,500 Civil, transient sick and poor.... 15,000 CivU, dieting and transporting prisoners..;.. 20,00 000-253,500 Military_.-.... 13,300 00 20,000 Local.........13^20 00 Public Buildings._ 66,500 00 Extraordinary expenses.54,400 00 Salaries, Regular Session.? 121,800 Mfjfct Extra Session.- 12,000? ISS.fiOO Policed._.-. 10,000 Interest._ 600,000 Contingent expenses, Extra Ses? sion._?? 42,000 Code._. 10,500 435,170 00 1,360,300 Add police assessment to 1858- 189,707 78 Add ceunty tax to 1868..... 500,000 $684,877 78 1,860,800 Excess of 1868 over 1858. $1,175,422 22 ?Now.?The pay of Judges, solicitors and officers connec? ted with the judiciary Is under the head of salaries. 1859. 1869. Executive.-$14,550 $35,800 Legislative.H.-.-49,760 161.W0 Judicial..~~.43,600 61.000 Treasury and ordinary civU.123,870 99,300 Jurors and constables.?.50,000 Educational.~?149,060 118,800 Public Buildings.?54,079 130,000 KxtraoTdlnary.~.-50,631 25,779 Military...-..'.-'109,000 88,500 644,730 721,169 Intemt. &?,ooo 1,071,169 Add to 1859 police assessment.220,000 Add to 1869 county tax. 500,000 $866,780 $1,571,169 Excess of 1869 over 1859.- $704,439 *NOTJfc?The large amount for military was exceptional. The State was then expecting war. We are now in pro? found peaoe. Let us now come from the appropriations to the expenditures, and test the accuracy of Mr. Chamberlain's statements. Under the caption of "Taxation in 1859 and in 1868, an increase of $136,000 only," Mr. Chamberlain puts the State and police tax for 1859 at $857,000, and the State and county tax for 1868 at $1,500,000. It is manifest that he does not intend to contrast taxations, for the difference between $857,000 and $1,500,000 is not $186,000, but $648,000, and his own figures would contradict him. It is expenditures which he compares. And here is Mr. Chamberlain's first error, for the $685,000, which he gives as the general tax, was not collected, and of course could not have been expended. If Mr. Cham? berlain had referred to the report from which he extracted the $635,000, he would have seen that the actual tax received was $600,444 29. The difference may be regarded as too small to" merit attention, but we are so poor that even that trifle is important. Of the $1,500,000, Mr. Chamberlain says that $500,000 "was appropriated" to pay accrued in-"j terest on the public debt. He then says that j $250,000 of this amount is chargeable to the old | administration, and the other $250,000 of inter? est he deducts "from the aggregate of taxes levied,"just as if it had been paid from those taxes. His assertion really is, that the $250,000 was paid from the taxes. Now, I assert that not one dollar was paid from the taxes for in? terest, during the fiscal year 1868. I have care? fully examined the receipts and payments at the treasury for that year, and there is not one single entry for interest, and Mr. Chamberlain's deduction of $256,000 is utterly unwarranted. The truth is that $500,000 was appropriated to nay interest on the public debt, in the gen? eral appropriation, but by another pet, August 26, 1868, bonds to the amount of one million of j dollars were authorized to be issued for pay? ment of interest, and authority was given to sell the bonds, and Mr. Chamberlain in his speech says, "of these bonds about $650,000 have been used thus far." The interest was not paid from the taxes, but from the bonds, and Mr. Chamberlain's statement is not only contradicted by the official recordSj but is in? consistent with another statement in the same speech. Mr. Chamberlain next reviews the expendi? tures for the years 1860 and 1869, and from those of the latter year makes several deduc? tions, among them interest on the public debt, "because in 1859 and 1860, that interest was wholly paid by the Bank of the State;" and Mr. Chamberlain challenges the denial of this statement. The challenge is easily met. By reference to the comptroller-general's report for October 1,1859, pages 28 and 29, it will be seen that there was paid in that year for interest on State debt, viz: Six per cent stock new capital $39,429,90, and six per cent stock new capital $29,670; total $69,099 90; and if Mr. Chamber? lain, when examining the comptroller-general's report for the same year, to ascertain the gen? eral tax, had only looked at page 4 of tho re? port he would have seen the iollowing: "Du? ring the last fiscal year it became necessary to raise by taxation $63,000 to meet the payment of interest on the bonds and stocks of the new capitol, and during the present year to raise $87,000 for the same purpose." Or if Mr. Chamberlain, while looking over the expendi? tures for the past year ending October, 1860, had been at all inquisitive, he would have found this item: "Interest on bonds and stocks for new capitol $99,592 60." Or, if he had even l'M)ked at the estimates for the year commen? cing October 1860, he would have seen "for interest on $1,850,000 of State capitol bonds and stocks $111,000; interest on Blue Ridge bonds $180,000; total $129,000. And yet it is fravely said that "the interest was paid wholly y the Bank of the State." Will Mr. Cham? berlain admit that his statement is erroneous, and that a speech intended to enlighten, does actually mislead ? Again, Mr. Chamberlain says that the cur? rent expenses of the State for 1869 were $1, 103,372 20. From this he deducts?For extraordinary ex? penses, $147,000; for interest, $338,693 86. To? tal, $485,693 86, and obtained $617,678 34 as the current expenses of the State. I have already shown that Mr. Chamberlain's assertion relative to the interest is contradicted by the proofs; but he commits a mote serious error when we contrast the $549,251 09 of 1860 with the $617,678 34 of 1869. Well may he exclaim, "I am willing on all occasions to let these figures stand fair and undiminished 1" But I propose to show that, consistently with the truth, they cannot stand. Brought to the test they will be diminished. They are put forward as total expenditures, and the contrast made, and a financial triumph claimed. But how is it that Mr. Chamberlain could remember to add the police assessments to the year 1859, and the county tax to the year 1868, and forget to add them for the years 1860 and 1869. Let us add the figures and see the result. Current expenses 1869._$ 617.678 84 Add county taxes. 500,000 1,117,678 34 Current expenses 1860.$549,251 09 Add poUce assessment. 198,916 97 - $748,1158 06 Difference not $68,427 25, as Mr. Chamberlain claim*, but...... $369,510 28 Thus far I have assumed the correctness, of | Mr. Chamberlain's figures, and have met the case as he stated it, because I desired to show that even on their own statement their expen? ditures far exceeded those of any former admin? istration. I now propose to examine Mr. Chamberlain's figures. He states the current expenditures for 1860 at $549,251 09, and the current expenditures for 1869 at $617,678 34. But he carefully deducts from the expenditures of Governor Scott's administration the expen? ses for the new State House, the census, the penitentiary and the quarantine buildings ($147,000) as extraordinary expenses. Was he not bound in fairness to deduct the extraordi? nary expenses of the Democratic administra? tion ? He has not done so. I propose to sup? ply the omission and let us see how the ac? count then stands. I quote from the official documents? The total expenditure for the year ending October 1, 1860, was. $967,968 57 Deduct? Interest..... 92,592 60 New Stete House.418,717 48 Public buildings and institutions... 51,615 85 Census.~. 12,682 66 - 575,608 59 Total current expenses for 1860..$392,359 98 The total expenditures of the State for the year ending October 1,1859, were $908,698.02. Deduct, as llr. Chamberlain has deducted for his party? Interest.$ 69,099 New Stete Honse. 355,000 Deepening Sullivan's Island channel. 41,960 Publishing Holmes' Fossils of So. Ca. 2,000 Geological Survey of State. 2,985 Bronze ?tetue of Washington. 8,000 Buildings at Military School.? 6,666 - $485,710 Total current expenses, 1859. $422,978 Difference between the real current expenses and Mr. Chamberlain's statement of them $156,610 02. We have examined these two years, as they are the ones selected by Mr. Chamberlain. Let us advert for a moment to the year ending Oc? tober, 1866?the administration preceding Gov? ernor Scott's. The total expenditures was, $266,248 04.? {Comptroller's Report, 1866, pages 27, 28.) The police assessment was $149,716 83. The esti? mates for the year 1867 were, $302,710. (Re? port 1866, p. 60.) How do these compare with the mammoth appropriations and expenditures of 1868 and 1869. Let as now examine the other side of Mr. Chamberlain's statement. He puts down the total expenditure of the State, excluding the county expenditure, at $1,108,372 20. These figures he obtains from the comptroller-gener? al's report. By reference to that document, page 77, it will be seen that the total expendi? ture of the State, excluding the county, was $2,099,345 44. Even the comptroller, accus? tomed from his youth upwards to the largest financial transactions, was appalled by the magnitude of this sum. The thing did not look well. Governor Scott, it is true, had com? plimented the State on the promptness and willingness with which the taxes had been paid, but there was a limit to every virtue, and some grumbling tax-payers might wince, under I this weighty load. It would never do to let it J go thus to the world. To borrow a word from Chamberlain, it must be "diminished,'' and as "dead men tell no tales," a portion of it should be charged to the defunct administration. Ac? cordingly we have the total expenditures, $2, 099,335 44, and immediately under it the fol? lowing entry: (Comptroller General's Reports p. 77.) Less the following sums expended in payment of claims' Ac., incurred previous to the inauguration of the present State Government, Ac. Free schools.8 39,023 81 Jurors and constables. 1,967 68 Contingent accounts. 60,021 11 Sheriffs' fees for dieting. 33,517 54 Paid R. K. Scott for use as coUate rals in effecting a loan, since re? turned._ 27,185 00 Bills Receivable redeemed. 222,000 00 Over deposit on account of taxes refunded._ 8,258 94 Permanent jail, Darlington.? 4,000 00 Interest on public debt.- 190,575 26 H. H. Kimpton, financial agent, amount elsewhere accounted for, having been returned to him.? 424,424 00 Total expended on account of old claims. 8995,973 24 Leaving expenses Incurred by the present government.... 1,103,372 20 Cash on hand..._._ 11,851 07 $2,111,196 51 The entire amount of $995,973,24 is coolly put down as "expended on account of old claims," of "claims incurred previous to the inaugura? tion of the piesent State Government." Was R. K. Scott incurred previous to the inaugura? tion of the present State Government ? It is bad enough to have him now, but pray have some pity on us and do not carry him "by re? lation back to the better days of the State. Was H. H. Kimpton an old claim ? Did the State owe that estimable young man $424,424, before the inauguration of present State Gov? ernment 1 I trow not. Of the bills receivable I will speak hereafter. How far the items are equally the dues of the present government, I do not know. The necessary facilities for sift ting the account are not within my reach. But to return to the comptroller-general's ac? count, and to that item of H. H. Kimpton, $424,424 "elsewhere accounted for, having been returned to him." Looking elsewhere I find, October 31, the last entry made thus: "By H. H. Kimpton $424,424." Now why was this particular item selected out, to be deducted as having been returned to him. Entries of the same character run throughout the year. There was paid to H. H. Kimpton during the year $848,848. The entries are exactly alike, and why should this particular one be deducted and none others ? In October the State received from H. H. Kimpton $819,714.50, and in Octo? ber the State returns to H. H. Kimpton $424, 424. How is it possible to deduct this $424,424, as an "old claim," "incurred previous to the in? auguration of the present State Government ?" To put it in the mildest form, this entry throws great doubt on the correctness of the entire ac? count. Let us look a little further into this matter of H. H. Kimpton. His account current with ] the State for the year shows: To cash, $1,007, 923.54; by cash $492,500 by balance, $516,424. 54. Total, $1,007,924.54. October 1,1869. To balance brought down, $515,424.54, or in plain English, that on that day the State owed H. H. Kimpton $515,424.54. This is what Mr. Kimpton says. The comp? troller-general's account shows that there was received from H. H. Kimpton $1,442,714.50; that there was paid to H. H. Kimpton, $848, 848. October 31, 1869. Balance due Kimpton $593,866.50. The two accounts do not tally. The one ac? count is made up to October 1, the other to Oc? tober 81. But this will not explain the differ? ence. The account* of the comptroller show that he received in October, from Kimpton, $819, 714.50, and that he paid Kimpton $545,323. Now, if the accounts are fairly and correctly kept, the accounts should agree?the same en? tries would be in each?add then to Kimpton's account the receipts and payments in October, and bring his account up to 31st October. It results thus: To cash.-.$1,007,924 54 By cash.-. $492,500 To cosh. 819,714 60 By cash.545,323 Total.1,827,639 04 Total.-1.037,823 Balance duo Kimpton. 8769,816 Total.$1,827,639 And yet the Comptroller's account only shows $593,866,50 as due Kimpton. In other words there is an error of 195,949.54. A word more, and we finish with Mr. Kimp? ton. His account shows that he received $2, 700,000 of bonds. The same account publish? ed by the comptroller shows that he sold $300, 000 of the bonds, and gave credit for the pro? ceeds. The comptroller, in his report, saysthat there was a further sale of $300,000 of bonds, report of which was not received "until after the close of the fiscal year," and yet the comp? troller coolly says in the same report that there arc "$2,700,000 of bonds signed up and placed in the hands of the financial agent remaining unsold." It is noteworthy that Mr. Kimp ton's account j shows no charges for commissions, brokerage or any expenses or compensation. It is the boldest account possible. To cash. By cash. The plentiful lack of information it contains attracted the attention of the Legislature, who, by joint resolution, requested "of the treasurer a report of the exact status of the State with H. H. Kimpton." The reply of the treasurer was a dignified re? buke to any such impertinent curiosity. He says: "In reply, I have the honor to respect? fully refer your honorable body to the treasu? rer's report, made in comformity to law, for the fiscal year ending October 31,1869 which con? tains all the information required by the reso? lution referred to." In fact, not to put too fine a point upon it, he snubbed the Legislature, and the Legislature submitted to the snub and relinquished their fursuit of knowledge. Anxious as I am to now the exact status of Mr. Kimpton's ac? count, I dare not hone for a better result. I must possess my soul in peace until the treas? urer or comptroller speaks, or we, are bankrupt and indifferent. The instances I have given show that the official accounts are inaccurate. I propose to show that they are utterly unreliable. I make no unfounded assertions. I deal in no loose charges. I take the official report themselves, and show they cannot be made to balance. I will Bhow from the accounts themselves that they are false. The treasury dealt largely with Kimpton. The items in kimpton's account with the State and the State account with Kimpton, should agree. They do not. The treasurer's account shows that he has re? ceived from Kimpton.?.$1,442,714 SO Kimpton's account shows that the total paid out by him on account of the State was. 1,007,924 54 The two accounts do not agree by.,_S 434,789 96 So much for the total. Let us test the ac? counts further. The treasury accounts show that the State received from Kimpton to April.$ 250,000 Kimpton's account shows that up to April 1, he paid out on account of the State. 373,213 33 To July L the treasury received from Kimpton... 195,000 Kimpton's account only shows. 180,000 To October 1, the treasury received from Kimp? ton.~.. 303,525 l Kimpton's account only shows.. 193,000 But there is one item which the account does show, which is wonderful, $74,976.71 for "cash paid expenses for preparation of State bonds, express charges, stamps, interest, &c." How much interest is not stated. "We give the en? try as it stands and commend it (o the atten? tion of our business men, as the most compre? hensive entry, perhaps, on record. If we return to the credits, errors exist there also. In August the State paid Kimpton $125,000, but somehow or other Kimpton only gives credit for $124,500. In September, the State again paid him $178, 525, but gets credit for only $158,000. On these two entries the State loses $21,000. What be eame of this amount ? The State paid it out. The State does not get the credit for it. Where did the money stop ? Who has it ? Against whom will Mr. Chamberlain, as attorney-gen? eral, bring action on behalf of the State to re? cover this $21,000? We wait to see. How long shall we wait ? Let us sift the treasury accounts a little. There was paid out of the treasury for interest on the public debt in July, August, September and October, 1869.$332,554 65 In July, August, September, H. H. Kimpton paid on account of State interest on public debt, amounting to.?.-. 192,704 50 Here then was.?.$525,259 12 paid out by the State for interest, and yet on the 81st of October the entire amount is again put down in treasury accounts, as paid for in? terest on public debt. In other words, the offi? cial accounts show that $525,269.12 of interest has been twice charged. If it was simply a clerical error, the cash on hand would show it. But the cash on hand is only $11,851.07. The money is therefore not in the treasury. It has been paid out. Who got it? Where is it? There is not a merchant or bookkeeper anywhere who will not say that the entry is a false entry. What reliance can be placed on accounts thus kept ? And yet of such material Mr. Chamber? lain seeks to build a moument to the financial wisdom of the Scott administration. We have already examined Mr. Chamber? lain's argument on the financial question so fully, that we can but briefly allude to the other parts of his speech. A word, however, as to the bills receivable. Mr. Chamberlain says "$300,000 of these bills had been issued prior to July, 1868." I confess to great surprise at reading this state? ment The truth was so clear, correct infor? mation so easily attainable, that Mr. Cham? berlain owed it to himself to make the inquiry before he risked his reputation on such an as? sertion. There never was $300,000 of the bills in existence, and Mr. Chamberlain could easily have known it. Governor Orr, in his message to the called session of the Legislature in July. 1868, says "only $220,000 have been signed and carried to cash in the treasury. On 1st May, 1868, there was outstanding and in circulation of these bills receivable only $135,687." (Mes? sage, page 7.) Governor Scott says: "There is a floating debt of $160,000 in the shape of bills receivable in circulation." (Message, 1868, p. 4.) Here again Mr. Chamberlain makes a slight error of $140,000. Mr. Chamberlain says: "These bills were receivable at par in payment of all dues to the State. Should we have re? issued them ? Could we aflord to re-issue them at 60 cents on the dollar and redeem them at Sar ? No." And yet that is exactly what they id. If they redeemed $300,000 of them, then they re-issued them, for only $160,000 were out when Governor Scott assumed control, and there was an act authorizing the re-issue of them. Was Mr. Chamberlain, the attorney general of the State, ignorant of the existence of the act ? To the list of errors and omissions we must !ret add one more. No where in Mr. Chamber ain's speech does he give credit for any monies paid ever to the new by the old administration. The idea instilled is that Governor Scott's ad? ministration not only had to raise the funds to meet its own debts, but were compelled to pay the debts of the preceding administration. Yet there was turnea over to the present ad? ministration $95,546.26, and the receipt of it is admitted by the treasurer. (See page 100.) This amount Mr. Chamberlain entirely ignores. If unlimited power of subtraction from the one side and omission from the other is conceded, it is easy to reach a result that will be politi? cally satisfactory. It will, however, hardly produce a fair and just statement, and that is what we had the right to expect from Mr. Chamberlain's position and ability. The last item of finance which we shall ad? vert to is the Blue Ridge bonds. Mr. Cham? berlain's point on this is purely technical. An endorsement is not, in legal phrase, a debt; but. legally and practically, it is an obligation; ana if the obligation is incurred for one who is un? able to pay, the endorser has to pay. Mr. Chamberlain's argument is this: If you en? dorse a note for a drunken idle vagabond, it is not a debt, oh no I It is only a contingent lia? bility 1 What comfort would there be in know? ing that the liability was only contingent? Any business man who was foolish enough to give such an endorsement, would be wise enough to prepare to meet the note at maturi? ty. Bat it is trifling with the subject to treat it in that fashion. If the Blue Ridge Road is as solvent as the other roads, for which the State has guaranteed bonds, then the State runs no greater risk. That is the real issue. Can the Blue Ridge meet its bonds at maturity ? Governor Scott decidedly says, no. "It would require about $8,000,000 to put the road in running order," and that "without the expenditure of more capi? tal, the whole investment must remain as dead capital." Unless we are prepared to give another $4,000,000, the road cannot be comple? ted?if not completed, the road cannot pay in-1 terest on the debt; and if cannot pay interest, it cannot pay principal; and where, then, would be the contingency ? Prudent men, embarking in business as co? partners, usually fetter each other with obliga? tions not to endorse or guarantee. Experience teaches that endorsements lead to bankruptcy, and they guard against it. Mr. Chamberlain would have us believe that it is a harmless amusement?a purely contingent liability. I have a better opinion of Mr. Chamberlain's in? tellect than to suppose him to be deluded or convinced by such sophistry. With this, I close my review of the financial administration of Governor Scott. I have Jex amined these accounts carefully, and have stated, or have endeavored to Btate, the results fairly. I have made no statement that is not sustained by the official documents. If there is error, it is, therefore, susceptible of easy and immediate correction. So far from the accounts justifying the en? comiums that have been paid to the wisdom and economy of the Scott administration, they are mutely eloquent of official ignorance and extravagance, of wasteful expenditure, of crimi? nal negligence, if not flagrant corruption. Large sums paid for trifling services, debts paid and the proper credits not given, and a half million of dollars twice paid for the same debt. To the property-holders and taxpayers, I commend a careful study and investigation of these accounts. To them the subject is one of vital importance. Unfortunately the inclina? tion of property-holders and business men is to avoid politics, and all political questions. They rather pride themselves upon being utterly in? different to politics, and one of the objects I have had in making this examination of State expenditures is to snow to them the price which they pay for that indifference. If they refuse to make their weight felt in important political issues, if the intelligence, capital and charac? ter of the State shun all connection with poli? tics, political control of the State will inevita? bly fall into the hands of those who are ignor? ant or corrupt. All will suffer from ill govern? ment. Every interest will feel it, but the weight of the burden will fall upon property. France versus South Carolina.?A dis? patch of the 1st from Tours, the present capi? tal of France, says: "The official journal of the Republic to-night publishes a decree, fixing the time for election of the Constituent Assembly, and prescribing the manner in which the election shall be held. The total number of representatives is to be 750, these to be elected by France alone. There is no provision thus far as Algeria or other colonies. Representatives to be apportioned on the basis of population. All Frenchmen, resident six months of any commune, and whose names may be inscribed in the list of electors shall be entitled to vote. Prefects and Secretaries General actually in office may be re-elected. The electors will vote at the chief place of the canton. Prefects of departments may, under certain circumstances, given at length in the original documents, divide the cantons in two or more election districts. Vo? ting to begin on the morning of October 16th, and end at 7 in the evening. The ballots will be counted on the same evening, by a commit? tee of six persons, who are to be named here? after." This shows the difference between despotism and liberty. The people of France, by educa? tion and experience trained to monarchy, with one-third of their territory in the possession of a powerful enemy and their country in a state of distraction, hold an election, the result of which must be ascertained on the same evening. In free and peaceful South Carolina, on the contrary, an election is to be held three days afterwards, and thirteen days are given the managers io make the votes eount out right.? Yorkville Enquirer. Hold him to Account.?One man, and one man alone, is responsible for whatever blood may be shed in this State up to the time for holding the October elections. That man is Robert Kingston Scott, Governor of South Carolina. The State was profouudiy quiet. Whites and blacks were busily engaged in tilling the soil, or were pursuing the peaceful paths of trade. There was no thought of resistance to any law? ful authority. Had such resistance been at? tempted, the white people of the State would have risen, as one man, at the call of the Gov? ernor, to enforce obedience to the laws of South Carolina. Peace and tranquility were devout? ly prayed for by this whole people. And now one man?this Robert Kingston Scott?threat tens the whole State with the horrors of civil war. The arming of the colored militia, and the refusal of arms to the white companies, were unerring indications of the intentions of the Scctt party. Nor was any attempt made to hold the negro soldiery in check or to restrain their excesses. The outrageous conduct of the Scott militia in Laurens, at Gadsden and else? where, passes wholly unrebuked. And the of? ficers of the militia are chosen from among the most rabid of Scott's partisans. The sole ob? ject of the organizatian of the militia is to overawe and intimidate the whites before the elections, and on election day. But the whites, though they love peace, are ready to fight for their rights. The skirmishing even now is be? ginning, and for the consequences, whatever they may be, Robert Kingston Scott must be held to strict account. The whites may lose the elections. Scott's militia may burn and destroy. The best blood of the State may be. poured out by the midnight assassin. But, in any event, enough men will remain in South Carolina to exact from Robert Kingston Scott an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. The old Mosaic law is explicit enough: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed !"?Charleston News. Millionaire's Will.?On Tuesday, in the Court of Ordinarv of Chatham County, the last will and testament of Edward Padleford, de? ceased, was admitted to probate. The exact amount of Mr. Padleford's wealth, is as yet un? known, but is reputed to be between a million and a half to two million dollars. The dona? tions made by the deceased prior to his death, and within the past six months, were munifi? cent and numerous, amounting to upwards of $200,000. Embraced in his will are of the fol? lowing bequests, after deducting which from his estate, the remainder is left to his daughter and two grand children : To the Union Society, 100 shares Southwestern Railroad stock; to Widows Society, 100 Shares Southwestern Railroad stock; to Savannah Female Orphan Asylum, 100 shares Southwestern Railroad stock; to Episcopal Orphans' Home, 20 shares South? western Railroad stock; to the Needle Women's Friendly society, 20 shares Southwestern Rail? road stock. The entire will occupies twenty eight sheets of closely written legal cap, and instead of requiring $7,500 worth of stamps, $500 covered the amount.?Augusta Chronicle and Sentinel. _A young lady of one of the first families of Bridgeport whose father made a fortune sell? ing raasquito-bar blankets for army use, went into a drugstore the other day and asked for a bottle of "Hair Manure." It was "Renewer" she wanted. ? "Landlord," said a traveller at the table of a country tavern, "this soup is a little weak? er than I am used to. I wish you would just let that chicken of yours wade "through it once more, if you please." Concert of Action the One Thing HeedfuL Mr. Calhoun never uttered an expression more truthful in itself, or applicable to the present juncture of affairs in South Carolina, than "concert of action is the one thing need' ful." This at the time was adopted in the State, and was immediately hailed in every section as a watch-word. Its importance is of equal consequence now. It carries within it* self both the necessity of the hoar and the clear indication hew effort is alone to culminate in triumph. The candidates for office on both sides are before the people. Those presented by the friends of Union and Eeform are immeasurably superior to those who have been pat forth by the party whose mission heretofore has been the desolation of the State. There can be no comparison between them. The former are the advocates of the people of South Carolina, the latter the nominees of those who desire no higher fate for her people than the sad and dis? astrous rule of the past two years. In such an issue there can be no question as to where the vote of every patriot should be cast. For the first time since the close of the war the oppor? tunity is afforded to the citizens of the Com? monwealth to control their own State, and to give some assurance of good and honest gov? ernment. This opportunity will be embraced. The issues are of far too momentous a conse? quence to admit either of indifference or su pineness. We cannot conceive of any time in the history of the State, or of any heretofore condition of affairs, as perilous to all that hon? est men cherish or that patriotism or even self interest would maintain as the present. The Government which demands a new lease of power has been the symbol of oppression ana depression. It has not even covered its corruptions with the mantle of secrecy. Cor? rupt and reckless in its sense of power, it has. with unblushing face, exposed in the face of all civilization) its open palm to the itching bribe. It has erected a Chinese wall around the State against the advent of capital. Capital will not come into any State whose rule is adverse to the intelligence and virtue of the people, and destructive of financial confidence by it* notorious corruption and wanton extravagance. Such a Government is, of course, inimical to all liberty. It is also at war with every depart? ment of life. Under its influence commerce is without guarantee, trade languishes, the indus? trial pursuits are depressed, prosperity becomes a vague and uncertain expectation of the fu? ture. The character of toe present govern? ment, therefore, comes directly home to every individual and hearth-stone throughout the Commonwealth. It is his State, his rights, his business, and his future, which is thus threat? ened and endangered. It is not surprising, therefore, that the people, taking up the ban? ner of Union and Reform, should, with enthu? siasm, have demanded on their own behalf, and in their own name, the right of a real self government It is not only necessary, however, to resolve, but to accomplish. And how is this desirable result to be attained? There is but one way, and that is by concert of action. It is by every individual feeling and realizing that he is a part of the body politic, and that upon his ex? ertions mnch depends. There must be a com? mon conviction of the danger and the necessi? ty of deliverance, and a common and united endeavor, hand in hand and shoulder to shoul? der, for a better and a purer Government For this purpose, we must sink all personal prefer? ences and prejudices. These should be forever set at rest, in view of the great dangers which environ us. To remain aloof or give a cold assent, is vir? tually to acquiesce and assist in the re-enthral ment of the State. Can any one doubt that if every man in the State, who desires a better government, would throw himself in the breach, and lend his every effort for success, that this ancient Commonwealth and her people would soon, from the mountains to the seaboard, re? echo with the shouts of victory, and the glad tidings of a hopeful future ? It is the people's danger. Let it be the people's contest ana the people's deliverance. ''Concert of action, the one thing needful." Be this the watchword of the day, and the glad harbinger of redemption. ?Charleston Courier. Emigration to the Southern States.? It is to emigration alone that the Southern States must look for prosperity in the future, and as the subject is one of importance to our people, we print the views ?f a gentleman who Las given much attention to the subject CoL Blanton Duncan, who is now in England as Chairman of the Committee appointed to pre? sent the advantages of the South to capitalists and emigrants, has written a letter to Governor Stevenson, of Kentucky, in which he says that the legislatures have not provided sufficient means to promote the transportation of foreign laborers to this country, and to furnish them with employment immediately on their arrival. He also says that the plan adopted by the British Government to secure emigration to its own colonies offers greater inducements than those presented by the Southern States. The organizations now at work in England for the colonies send all kinds of emigrants free, and provide for them temporary shelter and susten? ance until situations can be obtained. At any time within a month after arrival a free passage is given on any of the railroads to such points as the emigrants desire to locate on. To secure full protection to females, all single women are placed under the charge of a matron, both on the voyage and after their arrival. The emi? grants, except those who go out as domestics, sign an agreement to reimburse the passage money, $80, to the Government within two years. On the repayment of this sum the emigrant re? ceives forty acres of bind for each grown per? son and twenty acres for each child between one and twelve years of age. Those who choose to pav $20 in advance, sign an agreement to return $60 in a year's time and receive the same allotments of land. The government also as? sures emigrants of speedy employment in va? rious callings, mechanics and skilled laborers at wages of $2 to $3 a day in gold; shephe rds $125 to $200 a year, with rations; grooms $200 to $250; farm servants $125 to $150; servant maids from $100 to $200. The weekly rations are 8 pounds of flour, 12 pounds of beef 2 pounds of sugai, and a quarter of a pound of tea, for a man and bis wife, and half the above to a single person. CoL Duncan advises that the Legislature of Kentucky should adopt a similar plan. Persons Allowed to Vote.?"An Act to provide for the General Elections, and the manner of conducting the same," approved March 1st, 1870, provides: "Sec. 2. Every male citizen of the United States, of the age of twenty-one years, and up? ward, not laboring under the disabilities named in the Constitution, without distinction of ra? ?? or color or former condition, who-shall have been a resident of the State for one yesr? and in the county in which he offers to vote, for sixty days next preceding any general election, shall be entitled to vote ; Provided, that no person, while kept in any almabouseorasylum, or of unsound mind or confined in any publio prison, shall be allowed to vote."