The Anderson intelligencer. (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, April 08, 1880, Supplement, Image 7
operations there would be found
checks and balances?a sort of regu?
lating power?which would protect
to some extent the humblest citizen
and the largest taxpayer.
Because it would, at least in part,
have given the whites that represen?
tation which their intelligence and
property demanded.
Because the colored people, in
justice, ought to have accorded that
much to the taxpayers.
Because I saw that the time was
near when the colored men could
have and retain their just share of
representation only through such
system.
Because it would promote peace,
harmony and good will between the
races and secure to each a certain
ratio of influence and voice in State
affairs.
Because the taxpayers of the
State, in two conventions, had
asked for it, and it was acceptable
even to the most extreme Demo?
crats, "us a half loaf was better
than no bread." Governor Scott
recommended it. Governor Cham?
berlain, while Attorney General and
as Governor, favored it.
As it was a new system, my judg?
ment led me to try it in the govern?
ment of towns and villages first.
Hence I introduced "A Bill to
amend the charter of the town of
Anderson." [House Journal ses?
sion 1872-3, page 296.] The Bill
was acted upon favorably by both
houses and approved by Governor
Moses, March 14, 1874. Among
other things, this Act provided that
in the election of Councilmen the
voters should be allowed, if they
chose, to vote under the cumulative
system. At the first and second elec
. tions under this Act the Democrats
of Anderson, so far as I know, did
not object, but seemed rather pleased
with the plan. I feel confident that
good resulted from its adoption. I
After my election to the Senate I
endeavored to enlarge this system of
voting, and for that purpose offered
a Bill to extend it to other towns
and villages in the State. Governor
Chamberlain, in his annual message
1875-76, spoke of this system and
Bill as follows:
."I commend to the consideration of the
General Assembly the question of enacting a
law applying the system of voting known as
.'cumulativevoting'or 'minority representa?
tion' to the elections of inoorporatod cities
and towns in tho State. I do not fool prepared
to do more than to recommend that the system
be tried on a small scale at present. As a mat?
ter of theory tho system promises the best
results, bat I think oar policy respecting it I
should be tentative at first. If its practical
results are satisfactory when applied to oar
cities and towns, public sentiment will sustain j
its application to other elections. A Bill intro?
duced by Senator Coch ran, of Anderson, is no w <
before the Senate, which embraces this fea?
ture among its provisions, and I oommend it
to the favorable action of tho General Assem- -
bly."
I also moved to extend it to
the election of County Commission?
ers, but failed to succeed in both
efforts. If the members of the
House of Representatives, County
Commissioners, city and town officers
had been elected in this mode, the
State would have been spared much
that occurred in the canvasses of
1876 and 1878, and the whole
people might have been benefited
by avoiding so sudden a change.
In this connection, permit me to
refer to other Bills introduced by
me looking* to minority representa?
tion. As is well known, the Act
of 1872 dividing the State into five
Congressional Districts was gerry?
mandered, not in the interests of
the people, but for partisan pur?
poses, without any regard to popu?
lation, and in plain violation of the
law of Congress requiring Counties
to be composed of contiguous ter?
ritory. To remedy this defect,
and to give the minority a voice
in Congress, [see Senate Journal,
session of 1875-76, page 50,] I
presented "A Bill to divide the
State into five Congressional Dis?
tricts," which failed by reason
of the Committee not reporting
upon it I introduced the same
.bill during the session, [see Senate
Journal, page o35,] which was re?
ported upon favorably, and passed
the Senate after much opposition.
When it reached the House, it was
so amended as to defeat the object
for which it was intended, through
the efforts of an aspiring carpet?
bagger.
Tne House amendments secured a
.colored majority in every Congres?
sional District, thereby establishing
the color line to be the policy I
through which partisans, who had
no interest in the State except
stealage, expected to obtain posi?
tion. The Senate, by a close vote,
concurred in these amendments.
At the time this original Bill was
being considered I am convinced
that the Democrats looked upon it
as being an acknowledgment that
the white people were entitled to a
fair share of representation in Con?
gress and would have received it at
least as an improvement. Their
appeals being disregarded, and no
hope left of obtaining any repre?
sentation, the white people of the
State, aided by some Republicans,
by whatever means it is not now'
necessary to comment on or criti?
cise, wrested the power from the
Republican party, who had thus re?
fused to adopt a fair and just repre?
sentationin State or national affairs.
This supreme folly and indisposition
to do common justice has resulted
disastrously to the colored people
so far as political representation
goes. But charity should be ex?
tended to them, as they were de?
ceived and misled by a set of office
seekers unequaled in villainy, cun?
ning and corruption by any that
ever fastened upon any people. I
set forth my reasons for introducing
and supporting this Bill in Senate
Journal, pages 641 to 645.
The next step I took in this di?
rection was to secure a proper rep?
resentation of each County in the
? General Assembly, as provided for
in the Constitution. Whilst a mem?
ber of the House of Representatives,
my colleague, Mr. J. C. C. Feather
stone, endeavored to secure the
passage of an Act to apportion Rep"
resentatives in the several Counties
in the ratio of population, but failed.
Other members introduced measures
looking to the same end, but all
failed to pass. After my election to
the Senate I presented "A Bill to
apportion Representatives in the va?
rious Counties in this State in ac?
cordance with the j)rovisions of the
Constitution of the State." [Senate
Journal, 1875-76, page 45.] This
Bill became a law, being approved
by Governor Chamberlain March
2d, 1876. By virtue of its provi?
sions Anderson and Pickens, .Demo?
cratic Counties, gained one Repre?
sentative each, Barnwell and Rich
land, then considered Republican,
one member each, whilst the" four
then Republican Counties of Charles?
ton, Beaufort, Georgetown and
Laurens lost one member each. At
the election for members of the
General Assembly in 1876 the re?
sult was that the Democrats by the
gain of three members succeeded.
The power of the three Democratic
votes gained from the Counties of
Anderson, Pickens and Barnwell
can be estimated when it is consid?
ered that when the Wallace House
of Representatives was organized the
majority was barely over a moiety of
124 members, the constitutional
uumber of Representatives, and by
having that majority that House
was recognized and declared to be
the legal House by the Supreme
Court.
As a further evidence of my sin?
cerity and earnest desire to give the
minority representation, I submit
the following extract from The Co?
lumbia, Register, February 11,
1876, under the head of " Legisla:
tive Proceedings:"
"Mr. Cochran soconded the nomination of
Mr. Moetzo for Regent of tho Lunatio Asy?
lum. Said that he wished the Democrats to be
represented in all departments of the State
government, from tno highest to the lowest
positions, so that they mignt share in part the
responsibility of the administration."
monthly STATEMENTS.
Under the administrations pre?
vious to my election, and for a time
afterwards, the receipts and dis?
bursements of public funds were
involved in mystery. I desired to
have the people know how the pub
lie money was expended, feeling
that it was their right, and believing
it would to a great extent prevent
its being improperly or unlawfully
applied. I offered a Bill, whilst a
member of the House, [Journal ses?
sion of 1872-73, page 263,] which
provided, among other things, for
the publication of weekly statements
of amounts received and paid out
by the State Treasurer. This por?
tion of the Bill was defeated. After
my election to the Senate I intro?
duced "A Bill directing and re?
quiring the publication of monthly
statements by the State Treasurer."
[Senate Journal of 1874-75, page
366.] This Bill was duly ratified
and approved by Gov. Chamberlain,
March 5,1875. After the passage
of this Act the State Treasurer pub?
lished a monthly statement of all
moneys received, from whom and
on what account, to whom paid and
on what account, with a statement
of remainder on hand and where
deposited. These publications were
made at the State capital and in
Charleston, and proved that, though
the money was being extravagantly
expended, yet it was honestly ac?
counted for and so applied.
I also introduced "A Bill to re?
quire all persons authorized by law
to disburse moneys for the State to
publish monthly statements." [Sen?
ate Journal 1875-76, page 531.] It
was acted upon favorably, and was
approved by Governor Chamberlain,
March 24th, 1876. Under its pro?
visions, officers in charge of penal,
charitable and educational institu?
tions were required to publish
monthly a detailed statement of
amounts received and paid out, to
whom and on what account. These
Acts both accomplished much good,
and pointed out wherein reductions
could be made in expenditures, &c
the STATE MILITIA.
I was opposed to the militia as
organized, armed and equipped by
Governor Scott, and voted against
appropriations in its support. Refer?
ence to House Journal 1872-73,
page 342, will show that it was on
my motion that the contingent fund
of the Adjutant and Inspector Gen?
eral was reduced to one thousand
dollars; and on the vote to decrease
the appropriation for the organiza?
tion of the militia from twenty thou?
sand dollars to five thousand dollars
I voted in the affirmative [House
Journal 1872-73, page 359,] and
filed the following statement of
reasons therefor:
"Ivoted 'yes' on the question of adopting
the motion (by Mr.Myers) to strike out 'twenty
thousand' for the organization of tbo militia
and inserting 'five thousand,' for th e reason tha t
I consider twenty tbousand dollars an unreas?
onable amount to appropriate for that pur?
pose, and entirely unwarranted at this time,
especially when we take into consideration
the fact that, under the appropriation Bill,
now under consideration, with others passed
during this session, wo appropriate a considera
bio amount over and above the amount raised
by the Ux levy of five mills, placing us in a
position, under the Constitution, to Dgain Levy
upon a tax-ridden people, a special levy to pay
for extravagant and useless appropriations,
and not from any doubt but what the same
would be honostly applied by our present Ad?
jutant and Inspector Goneral, in whom I bavo
the utmost confidence.
(Signed? JOHN R. COCHRAN."
PENITENTIARY.
The support and maintenance of
this institution for a few years cost
the State of South Carolina one
million of dollars, the State receiv?
ing, comparatively speak' .g, no
compensation or return for this large
expenditure of money. The number
of prisoners was increasing rapidly
and the expense in maintaining
and guarding them increasing cor?
respondingly. Owing to the insuf
ficiency of room in the building
the prisoners were crowded into close
quarters and their health endan?
gered thereby. For the purpose of
relieving the State in some degree
of this expense and to secure better
health and management of the con?
victs I introduced the following
resolution, [Senate Journal,1875-76,
page 475]:
" YVhoreas the financial condition of tho Stato
of South Carolina renders it imperative that
every expenditure should be reduced to tho
lowest practicable amount; and whereas tho
State Penitentiary is a grievous burden, and no
adequate provision can bo made for its proper
support and maintenance, tho presont popula?
tion of the samo only being considered, unless i t
can be made to derive a fair revenue from tho
labor of the prisonors; and whereas it is plain
that, at the rate of increase of its population
obtaining during the past six months, five or
even six hundred prisoners may have to bo
provided for during tho present fiscal year, and
that even a mere moderate rate of increaso
would in a few years become very burdensome
and oppressive; and whereas the experience
of other States has led almost universally to
the policy of contracting for the support of
State prisons with privnte parties as the most
satisfactory and economical provision fo\ the
same: therefore.
"Jie it renolved by the Senate, the House of
Representatives concurring, That the Direc?
tors of the State Penitontiary. by and with tho
consent of tho Governor, be directed to ascer?
tain whether any contract can be made with
any responsible party or parties for the leasing
of the convict labor and tho maintenance of
the said Penitentiary on terms just and advan?
tageous to the prisonors and to the Stato: and
in their discretion the said Directors of tho
Stato Penitentiary and the Governor are here?
by authorized to draw and execute such con?
tract and submit the samo to tho General
Assembly for ratification."
This resolution was adopted, but
failed to accomplish the object for
which it was intended. The num?
ber of convicts continued to increase
in a distressing ratio, and their proper
treatment and government, in a
manner consistent with the laws of
humanity, and at the same time to
save the people of the State from
unnecessary expense in their sup?
port, became a question second to
none in importance in the economy
of State government. After much
reflection, and obtaining all the in?
formation within my means, I pre?
sented to the Senate "A Bill to util?
ize the convict labor of the State
and to let out the same by contract."
[Senate Journal, session 1876, page
102.] The Bill finally received the
necessary readings, became an Act,
and was approved by Governor 1
Hampton, June 8,1877. The Act
provided under certain circum- i
stances for the completion of the
Penitentiary, and authorized theDi
rectors to take immediate charge of |
the inmates, property, &c. But in ,
order that you may more fully un- .
derstand the object, scope and in- (
tention of this Act, and to prove ,
that the subsequent alleged ill-treat- j
ment of convicts is not because it j
was not forbidden, or through the
fault of the law, I submit several '
Sections of this Act:
"Sec. 4. That the said Board of Directors are -
hereby authorized and empowered to lease or j
hire out, upon such terms and conditions as
they may think most advantageous to the <
State, and that will secure the health and con- .
finemont of tho prisoners, any or nil other ;
convicts in the Penitentiary, except the con- ]
victs under sentence for murder, rape, arson
and manslaughter, under the following rules,
regulations and restrictions, with all others
imposed by the said Board; that tho said Board
of Directors shall mako an annual report to
thoGonoral Assembly at tho regular sessions
of all their actings and doings, showing the
number and names of convicts hired out, to
whom hired, for what purpose and for what
consideration; and as often sb any sums of
money are received for the labor or hire of
said convicts, or any of them, tho same shall
bo paid to the Treasurer of the State, of which
a full account shall bo given in said annual
report: First, all convicts shall be safely kept
within tho State and humanely treated, the
food, clothing, lodging and*modes of punish?
ment to be carefully provided for in any and
all contracts; second, convicts shall not be re?
quired to labor moro than ten hours a day, or
on Sundays or holidays: Provided, That con?
victs shall not be hired out for agricultural
purposes.
"Skc. 5. That the contractor or contractors
shall bo required to enter into bond in the
sum of fifty thousand dollars, with good and
sufficient sureties, to bo approved by tho
Board, for the faithful performance of said
contract; and any contractor or contractors
who shall be guilty of maltreatment, neglect
or cruolty towards said convicts shall be liablo
to indictment, and on conviction shall be p~n
ished by imprisonment for a term not v . i
than twelve months nor loss than one month,
and by fine not more than one thousand dol?
lars and not less than fifty dollars, at the dis?
cretion of the Court."
It is evident that if the law had
been complied with no trouble could
have arisen; the convicts would
have been more humanely treated,
their health and condition improved,
and the State relieved in a great
degree of the burden of supporting
them. Much has been accomplished
in relieving the State aud in having
the aid of this labor in constructing
railroads, drainage of lands and
other public enterprises intended for
the development of the manufactur?
ing, agricultural and mineral re?
sources of our State; but it is with
deep regret that I am compelled to
believe that in some instances the
convicts have been inhumanly treat?
ed. The subject is one of grave
importance, and I can only hope
that future Legislatures, warned by
the fearful experience of the past,
will devise and maintain such a plan
of government of the institution as
will make it a place of punishment,
severe by its seclusion from inter?
course with others, rigid in discip?
line and constant labor of ten hours
each day, and, at the same time,
whether the convicts are within or
without the walls, that no charge of
inhumanity, cruelty or withholding
the chance to reform shall ever be
justly made against the people of
this State. If this can be accom?
plished, at a proper expense, it is all
we can hope from any penal institu?
tion. My efforts have been directed
in the hope that at least eo much
may be obtained.
BOUNDARY LINE.
Among the strange events occur?
ring in 1871 and 1872 in this State,
and the bare mention of which will
cause surprise and wonder among
many of our people, was an organ?
ized scheme to arrange for the ces?
sion of all that territory West of
Seneca River to its head waters to
the State of Georgia. A Joint Reso?
lution to appoint a Commission,
with power to arrange and finally to
determine the line between the
States of Georgia and South Caro?
lina, was adopted and approved by
Gov. Scott, January 8, 1872. The
action of these Commissioners was
declared, under the Joint Resolution,
"binding upon the people of the
State of South Carolina'' It was
understood that the State of Geor?
gia was preparing, through certain
officials, to join in the Boheme. I
was greatly surprised to learn that
many Oood citizens living West of
the Seneca River would acquiesce in
this cession to the State of Georgia
as the only means left them to es?
cape from what they believed to be
great oppression and exorbitant tax?
ation. I opposed the scheme for
many reasons?among them that
South Carolina could not afford to
lose any portion of her territory;
and to transfer so large a portion of
her intelligent white population
would have been disastrous indeed.
I No portion of the State is now in a
more prosperous condition than that
proposed to be ceded, and nowhere
did the people do more to restore
good and honest government than
those living between the Seneca and
Tugalo Rivers. I determined, if
possible, to defeat this wild and des?
perate undertaking. To do so, I
introduced, as shown by House
Journal of 1873-74, page 3, the
following: " Bill to repeal a Joint
Resolution to require the Governor
to communicate with the proper au?
thorities of the State of Georgia,
with a view to a readjustment of the
boundary line between the States of
Georgia and South Carolina, and
authorizing the appointment of three
Commissioners." The Bill to repeal
passed and was approved by Gov.
Moses, March 17, 1874; and thus
the integrity of our territory was at
least saved from threatened harm.
PENCE LAW.
This question appeals particularly
and personally to many of ray late
constituents, and hence I desire that
my views and acts shall be scruti?
nized and fairly judged. Believing,
after ail the information I could ob?
tain, that the people at large would
be benefited by a change of the law,
I introduced "A Bill to regulate the
fence law in Anderson County,"
[House Journal 1873-74, page 250.]
This Bill met with opposition, but
finally passed, and was approved by
Governor Moses.
Under this Act this question was
submitted to the voters of Anderson
County, and, although a majority
roted for the measure, a large pro?
portion of them claimed that they
lid so under a misapprehension;
therefore the Commissioners, for fear
injustice might be done, and having
i high regard for the rights of the
people, ignored the result.
After my election to the Senate
[ went to North Carolina to see
for myself the actual workings
af such a law there. This only con?
firmed my former convictions and
induced me to persevere. Again I
proposed a Bill [see Senate Jour?
nal 1874-75, page 359,] which fixed ,
the boundary lines of land as the
lawful fence. It received a majority
vote in the Senate, but was defeated
in the House.
Again, at the regular session of
1876, [Senate Journal, page 79,] I
presented "A Bill to authorize Coun?
ty Commissioners to submit to the
qualified electors of their several
Counties a proposition to alter the
fence law and to provide for effectu?
ating the same." This Bill was
acted upon favorably in the Senate,
amended in several particulars in
the House, and approved by Gover?
nor Hampton, June 7th, 1877. An
election was held under this law, and
the people, by their votes, adopted
it. No comment is necessary now.
Experience has abundantly verified
the wisdom of such a measure, and
I doubt if, after another year's test
of the beneficent results of the new
law, there will be found a corporal's
guard in Anderson County in favor
of the old system. Competent
judges are of the opinion that the
County has saved the past season
alone in securing cotton that would
have been lost under the old system
at least one hundred thousand dol?
lars. Many other Counties have
taken advantage of this Act, and
general thrift and prosperity fol?
lows.
STATE, COUNTY AND OTHER FUNDS.
By refereuo to House Journal,
session 1872-73, page 263, it will be
found that I introduced "A Bill to
regulate the deposits of State, County
and other funds." This Bill re?
quired the State Treasurer to deposit
the moneys received by him in banks
to be designated by a State Board,
such banks to give bonds for double
the amount of their average de?
posits. Section 7 of said Bill re?
quired the State Treasurer to pub?
lish monthly statements of amounts
received, from whom, to whom paid
and on what account. It also re?
quired County Treasurers to deposit
all moneys received in a bank within
the limits of the County in which
such collections were made, or, if one
did not exist in such County, then
to be deposited in the nearest bank
in good standing, no money to be
withdrawn except upon an order
signed by a majority of the County
Commissioners, countersigned by
their Clerk and the County Trea?
surer; and required him to publish
monthly statements of amounts re?
ceived and paid out. It also re?
quired Clerks of Court, Sheriffs and
Judges of Probate to deposit all
public moneys received in bank and
publish monthly a statement of
amounts received and paid out, from
whom received and to whom paid.
Any State or County officer failing,
neglecting or refusing to comply
with the provisions of this Act was
to be punished by fine and imprison?
ment. When one contemplates the
innumerable losses sustained by the
people from 1872 to 1876 through
the failure of banks containing the
State's moneys on deposit, defaulting
County Treasurers, defalcations of
other State and County officers, it
will not be questioned that the en?
actment of such a measure as above
referred to was absolutely necessary
to protect the interest of the people.
I succeeded in securing its passage
in the House, but it was defeated in
the Senate.
I also introduced "A Bill to pro?
vide for the deposit and safe-keeping
of the moneys of the State." The
main features of this Bill threw safe?
guards around the deposits of the
State's moneys. This was intro?
duced in the Senate. [Journal, Ses?
sion 1874-5, page 631.] This was
also defeated. Having endeavored
in my capacity as a member of the
House and as Senator to provide
against and prevent loss in this man?
ner, I feel that I have fully dis?
charged my duty in the premises,
and am not in any way responsible
for the failure of the measures intro?
duced or the unfortunate results fol?
lowing their rejection.
COUNTY TREASURERS AND AUDIT?
ORS.
Reference to House Journal of
1872-73, page 58, will show that
I introduced "A Bill to abolish the
office of County Auditor and trans?
fer the duties of said office to the
Clerks of Courts in their respective
Counties." The Clerks, being elect?
ive officers, would have in a large
degree the confidence of the people;
and being in charge of all the land
records in their Counties, they would
necessarily be conversant with the
value of real property, and could
assess it as well as the personal
property with greater accuracy and
less expense than the Auditors, and
their appointment to the service
would break up or prevent the col?
lusion supposed to exist in many
cases between the Auditors and
Treasurers. The Bill, however,
failed to pass the House.
During the regular session of
1874-75 [as shown on page 33 of
Senate Journal] I proposed "A
Bill to make the offices of County
Treasurers and Auditors elective.
This Bill being defeated, I again, at
the session of 1876-77, [Senate
Journal, page 102,] introduced "A
Bill to provide for the election of
County Treasurers and Auditors."
This was also defeated. I tried
again [Senate Journal, session of
1877-78, page 27,] by presenting a
Bill with the same title as the last
introduced, which passed the Sen?
ate but was not acted upon in the
House.
REDOC7TCN OP SALARIES.
After relating my policy and
votes in regard to retrenchment and
reform generally in the State gov?
ernment it may seem unnecessary to
further specify, and yet I think it
proper to refer to other actions of
mine in the same direction. My
vote and voice were invariably
given in favor of a reduction of
salaries to the lowest minimum con?
sistent with the proper performance
of the duties of the several offices.
At the session 1875-76 [Senate
Journal, page 260,] I introduced "A
Bill to fix the salaries of certain
officers, with tabular statements in
relation thereto." Although not
passed in the form in which I offered
it, yet its provisions in the main
were reported by the Finance Com?
mittee as amendments to a Bill from
the House on the same subject and
eventually became the law.
The Committee not having adopt?
ed that portion of ray Bill referring
to the commissions to be allowed
County Treasurers, when it was
being considered in the Senate, as
shown on page 325 of Journal, I
moved to amend the amendment to
Section 2 by striking out the
words 'twenty-five hundred dol?
lars' and inserting the words
' two thousand,' in reference to the
commissions of County Treasurers,
so that it should read ' they shall not
receive more than two thousand dol?
lars,' and my amendment to the
amendment was adopted. This
alone saved the State annually
nearly 816,000. During the same
session, when this Bill was
under consideration, I also offered
to fix the amount allowed the Audi?
tor of Anderson County for assess?
ments at 8400 instead of 8750.
Several Democratic Senators moved
to include their Counties, which
operated to postpone the considera?
tion of the Bill. When my amend?
ment came up I produced a tele?
gram from the County Commission?
ers of Anderson County, also a let?
ter and telegram from Mr. T. J.
Webb, then Auditor, that $400 was
sufficient remuneration. Notwith?
standing, my amendment was voted
down?13 to 10. One would natural?
ly ask the reason. I answer, simply
to prevent a comparison being made
between the expenses of the Counties
where the reductions were proposed
to be made and the expenses of the
Counties represented by those who
opposed the reductions, and to give
to the friends of certain Senators
larger amounts for assessing than
were necessary. I merely refer to
this that you may have some con?
ception of the obstacles in the way
of those who favored economy and
opposed extravagance.
During the extra session of 1877
[Senate Journal, page 13,] I intro?
duced "A Bill to fix and reduce
salaries of certain officers." This
Bill passed the Senate, but in the
House of Representatives was re?
ferred to the Committee of Ways
and Means, reported upon unfavor?
ably and rejected. Being surprised
at this, I asked Senators Gary,
Witherspoon, Jeter, Butler and
others to see their friends in the
House and get them to agree to a
reconsideration of the vote whereby
it was defeated. They did so. I
, also asked Mr. Sheppard to move a
j reconsideration, which he kindly
' consented to do. He did so, but the
I measure was then postponed until
I the next session. This did not
satisfy ine. I called upon Mr. N.
B. Myers, a Republican, who had
joined the "Wallace House of Rep?
resentatives, and who had proved
himself a staunch friend of reform
upon many occasions, to take charge
of the measure and, if possible, push
it through. He immediately made
a motion [House Journal, page 128,]
that the Bill be placed upon the
Calendar and printed, which motion
prevailed. The Bill was, a,t my
[ request, reconsidered by the Com?
mittee of Ways and Means, and I
was invited to be present. The
result was that a majority of the
Committee favored the Bill, with
some amendments. It we,s acted
upon favorably by the House, be?
came an Act, and was approved by
Governor Hampton, June 7, 1877.
This Act fixed the salaries of State
officers, their clerks, Judges, Solici?
tors, County Treasurers, Auditors,
School Commissioners, and the
amount allowed each County for
assessments. The following com?
parisons will demonstrate the effect
and saving to the State by the
Acts referred to.
Salaries of State officers. &c. before
the passage of first Act 1875 for
each year.8317,501 00
Salaries, &c, after the passage of
first Act ouch year. 264,275 00
Annual reduction. 853,226 00
Salaries, ?fcc, after tho passage of
first Act.8264,275 00
Salaries, ic, niter tho passage of
second Act 1S77. 153,850 00
Additional annual reduction.$110,425 00
UNJUST AND FRAUDULENT CLAIMS.
It might be sufficient to say that
during my term of service in the
House of Representatives and Sen?
ate the Journals will show a steady
and persistent opposition on my part
to all claims presented that ap?
peared to be unjust or fraudulent.
But to give you a better conception
and idea of the nature of some of
these claims, I shall have to go
somewhat into detail: ?
"Claim of the South Carolina
Bank and Trust Company."?One
among the most noted and perhaps
most unblushing claims presented for
payment to the Legislature had
the above caption, but was more
familiarly known as " Hardy Solo?
mon's claim." It purported to be
made up of large amounts of pay
certificates and other evidences of
indebtedness, the greater part of
which was of a doubtful and suspi?
cious character. The claim came
before the Committee of Ways and
Means of the House of Representa?
tives. Being then a member of that
Committee, I opposed the claim, and,
with Hon. R. M. Smith, submitted a
minority report. [See House Jour?
nal, extra session of 1873, page 93.]
Amongst other reasons set forth
against the passage of the Bill pro?
viding for the payment of this
claim, the following will appear:
***** "That although the Bill itsolf
pretends to bo based upon a quantity of pay
certificates, bills payable or Treasury notes of
the lato Treasurer, Niles 6. Parker, not a
single one of them has been produced for our
examination as to its validity or legality, al?
though the minority of the Committee repeat?
edly and formally demanded them. That the
wording of tho Bill itself is so obscure and in?
definite that it is impossible for your minority
Committee to separate the principal and inter?
est therein mentioned, and thus ascertain
which is the greater amount. * * *
"That tho provisions of tucsccond Soctionof
said Bill are so mandatory upon tho State
Treasurer that they dep; ivo him of all discre?
tion and preclude him from making any in?
vestigation whatever as to the logali'yot tbo
claims presented for payment.
" VVc would further call tho attention of
your honorable body to the unsottled condi?
tion of the country, and especially the embar?
rassed and critical condition of the finances of
the State, as an insurmountable objection to
the passage of such an extravagant and doubt?
ful measure."
This protest on our part and other
efforts to defeat this measure, al?
though we were aided by other
members, were of no avail; the Bill
passed. Subsequent investigations
have demonstrated that the sum of
eighty thousand dollars was entered
upon the books of the bank, of which
Hardy Solomon was then President,
as "legislative expenses," and the
evidence adduced proved a large
portion of it was expended in brib?
ing members of the General Assem?
bly to vote for the passage of the
Bill. What a comment on such
legislation?that880,000should have
been expended to secure an appro?
priation of 8125,000?and bow ut?
terly futile any honest effort to de?
feat it! That we were correct in
our suspicions, founded on the vague
and indefinite wording of the Bill,
was soon apparent, as Treasurer
Cardozo discovered a due bill for
825,000, in the handwriting of ex
Treasurer Parker, held by the bank,
for which payment was demauded,
the same being issued without any
vouchers for the same being found
in the Treasury. Cardozo protested
against paying the same, but, the
matter being decided against him, he
could do no more than succumb to
the inevitable. It has also been
proven that legal claims held at
that time by that bank, which were
included in the schedule of the
claim as passed, amounting to
nearly 820,000, were abstracted by
its officers and collected as deficien?
cies, in violation of the express pro?
visions of the tax levy, and a like
amount of fraudulent pay certifi?
cates issued (being ante-dated) and
substituted in place of the legal
claims, and thus collected as a part
and parcel of the original claim.
"A Bill to pay the claims held by
J. Woodniff" was auother of this
class. I opposed it before the Com?
mittee and on the floor of the House,
and, with others, fought it from first
to last. By reference to House
Journal, session 1873-74, pages 491
to 498 inclusive, it will appear that
at one time the opponents of the
Bill were in a h-?peless minority, but
gained strength steadily until the
I enacting clause of the Bill was
{stricken out. The friends of the
j measure rallied very unexpectedly
and reconsidered that vote. For a
I time it appeared as if the Bill would
j pass, the vote on reconsideration
! being 49 yeas and 27 nays?many
j opponents of the Bill being absent.
I However, under the skillful m?n
' agement of Representative N. B.
Myers, the contest was prolonged
until we gained confidence and
agreed to take a vote; but, to our
surprise, the Bill passed its second
.reading by the close vote of 46 yeas
to 43 nays. Upon the third reading
we still opposed it, and succeeded in
having it indefinitely postponed by
a vote of 42 to 36. Mucli of this
work was accomplished between the
second and third readings of the
Bill, and other members joined
heartily in its final defeat. Many
similar claims were opposed in like
manner, as the Journals fully show.
It was astounding and humiliating
to witness claims, without merit or
common honesty, rushed through by
Concurrent Resolutions. Although
no appropriations were made to pay
them, nevertheless, by their passage,
a large floating indebtedness was
entailed on the people of the State.
This was generally accomplished at
the close of a session and amidst the
hurry and coufusion attending such
scenes. Many such claims passed,
some for large amounts, without
scrutiny and common care. To cure
such a state of things I presented
two Bills with the following title:
" To provide the manner of passing
claims against the State by the
General Assembly." [Senate Jour?
nals 1874 and 1875, page 599;
1875-6, page 313.] The second
Bill I presented was passed, and
was approved by Governor Cham?
berlain. It provided that all
claims exceeding a given amount
should be passed only by Act or
Joint Resolution, and that all vouch?
ers pertaining thereto should, before
a certificate could be issued by the
officers of the two houses, be filed in
the office of the Comptroller General.
This Act had the effect, for a time,
of checking and correcting so great
an abuse in the management of the
passage of claims by the Legislature.
I think it not inappropriate in this
connection to state that payment of
many of the claims which had been
improperly passed before this Act
was rendered impossible by the sub?
sequent exposures of the Committee
to Investigate Frauds.
A REGISTRATION LAW.
Article VIII, Section 3, of the
Constitution of this State provides
that "It shall be the duty of the
General Assembly from time to
time to provide for a registration
of all electors." This provision
and the duty it enjoins seem plain
and unequivocal. The Journals
will show that from the time I took
my seat in the General Assembly I
favored and advocated the enact?
ment of a proper registration law,
because it contemplated and pointed
out the most certain mode by which
the purity of elections could be
secured, so far as the number of
eligible voters was concerned. It
offered a safeguard as well for the
white as the colored voters of the
State, by removing all illegal at?
tempts to swell a majority beyond
the number of authorized registered
voters, so that in no election pretend?
ing to be fair and just could the num?
ber of votes cast appear larger than the
number of actual registered voters.
That it was the true policy of the
Republican! party of this State to
have such a law enacted, I have
often urged and pressed upon them.
The present condition of affairs will
doubtless prove a forcible reminder.
The first distinct move I made
will be found in House Journal
1873-74, page 448, as a member of a
Committee appointed to report what
legislation wa3 necessary. Among
other things that Committee recom?
mended "A Bill to provide for a
registration law." This was disre?
garded.
Senate Journal 1874-75, page 145,
will show that I introduced "A Bill
to provide for the registration of the
electors of this State in conformity
with the provisions of the Constitu?
tion." This Bill was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary, of
which B. F. Wbittemore was Chair?
man. The Bill never saw the light
afterwards. Again, at the session of
1877, [see Journal of Senate, page
13,] I introduced "A Bill to provide
for the registration of electors in
conformity with Article VIII, Sec?
tion 3, of the Constitution." This
Bill was likewise suppressed in Com?
mittee, Whittemore being Chair?
man. Again, as will he found by
reference to Senate Journal 1877-78,
page 748, 1 offered a third Bill with
the same title as the last named.
Whittemore by this time had fled
the State. The Bill was reported
on favorably and passed the Senate,
but was defeated in the Houso by
being retained in Committee, al?
though I am confident at that time
a majority of the House favored the
measure, and it*is within my knowl?
edge that Governor Hampton ap?
proved it. Thus a plain and direct
provision of the Constitution has
beeu ignored and disregarded by
both political parties in this State.
The sequel will show whether it is
safe or wiBe at any time or for any
purpose or policy to neglect the en?
forcement of any part of the organic
law.
DRAINAGE OF LAND8.
Among the many subjects agitated
and discussed to preserve the public
health and increase the production
of swamp lands, drainage excited
much attention and interest, espe?
cially in Anderson County?the
pioneer in this among the upper tier