University of South Carolina Libraries
VOl.XLI NO39.3NEWBERRY~ S. O.~ FRIDAY' IWVEMBER 8, t907. TWC- E K 3.0AY A TO PUT 0O00 CRIME CONVICT CRIMINALS JUDGE GARY SAYS CRYING EVIL LACK o FTRUTH. Looking at Murder Cases One Would Doubt if War is Over-Duty of Jurors Emphasized. The court of general sessions for this county convened on Monday morning, but as Monday was sales day, and there were a great many sa;l es, there was no business transacted of consequence, except filling the pamels of the grand and petit jurors. Judge Ernest Gary is presiding at this term of the court, and is hand ling the business with dispatch. OA Tuesday morning the grand jury was organized, and Solicitor Cooper handed out a numiber of bills of indictment. Judge Gary charged the grand jury foreibly both as to their general and specific duties. Ife said he thought it was a defect in tle criminal law which gave- a circuit judge earte blanche to charge grand juries which usually did their duty anyway, and restricted judges in their charges to ,petit juries, which some times did not do,their duty. He said there was a-great hue and cry on the part of the press that the courts were not doing their duty,-but the newspa pers did -aot point out the remedy. It took the judge, the lawyers and other officers of the court and the juries to constitute the court, and if a part of the courtwas not doing its duty, those who were raising the hue and cry should specify which part of the court was not doing its duty. No improvement on the jury system had been suggested. He said the duty of juries was to put down crime and the way to put dow. crime was to convict criminals. -'.e spoke of the heavy criminal docket, which had con fronted him in Laurens, and said he had told the grand jury up there that one might well infer from the many murder cases for trial that the war was not over in Laurens county. Juries should frown down crime; he said. Wien witnesses came before juries and gave perjured testimony, 'which the juries knew was untrue, it was the duty of the juries to discard that testimony and to get at the truth of the ease. The erying evil of today was a laek of truth. The court was here for the betterment of the societV of Newberry county. He was, not here to rezyter any kick against Newberry county. Newberry was a place dear to his heart. Some of his aneeitors reposed in her sacred soail. But he wanted to impress upo'n the jury that it was their duty to frown down crime. He said there was much disens.cion today of the liquor ques tion. The liquor question. he said. would, be solved -immediate ly if the law of the 'land were enforced. -It was a lamentabhle fac' thaf the drunkard had more privisl eges than the law-abiding citizen. The law said that drunkenness was an ag gravation of crime, while in too many instances t-he juries said it -was an excuse. To prohibit a man from takin<r a drink of whiskey was an abridgement of a personal liberty, but wen men ahused their personal liber ties. then the law shoula step in. In conversation with an eminent physi cin reeently. said Judge Gary, the physician had expressed the opinion that crime waa a disease~ germ. The state had a sanitarium for the cure of this disease, located on the banks of 'the (Eniearee, and the seientist; down thre said ther conld eure it. The ;jury were the doctors. If th'ey would diaznose the eases, he would sen them lip for 'treatment. Ent. while it was the duty of the jure3 tn frown down crime, it was em!llv their dntv to proteet the in noent. P>ut if the state had made ot a p-in~ facie case, it was the duy of the grand.jury to return a tn' hip. and then the case would be inrlafed hv a netit jury, and the petit juries would he expected to ome up to the high mark which had been set for them. On the call of tPhe docket Tuesday that the case of the State vs. Thomas J. Davenpout, charged with assault and battery with intent to kill, would be continued until the next term. William Sanders was arraigned on the charg4 of murdering Carrie Math is. and pleaded guilty. Judge Gary said that he did not know of any law I which said 'that a man charged with murder should not plead guilty, and he instructed the solicitor to write out the plea. Later, however, he ask- I ed Sanders if he knew the effect of the plea. Sanders replied that he had I no one to speak for him, and he only wanted to ask the meray of the court. Judge Gary asked hi - 7 he wanted to 6 be tried. Sanders rrded they could e try him if they wanted to. He said a he didn't know they were going to try ' him today. Judge Gary coneluded * that it was best to give him a trial, P and stated that he would appoint counsel to defend him. C John Boyce, colored, was convicted tl of larcenyfrom the person, and sen tenced to serve one year. It was al- a leged that while riding in a buggy a with Henry Gallman, also colored, he S took $72 out of Galman's pocket. C He was ably defended by Mr. E. S. t1 Blease. Sam Hart pleaded guilty of the v: charge of stealing a bicycle and was C given one year in the county jail. On Tuesday afternoon Mr. John N. Z Livingston was tried and acquitted on r the charge of murder in killing a neg- v ro. Rich Kemp. a short time ago. The r( testimony of the state made out a Ci case of self defense, and a verdict m w-.s directed by the court. It ap peared that Kemp and some other s negroes were drinking and shooting. and raising a general disturbance on 1 Mr. Livingston's place, and when Mr. 0] Livingston went out to ask them to I zo home, Kemp snapped his pistol at 0 Mr. Livingston, whereupon Mr. Liv ingston shot him. The defendant was represented by Mdssrs. Blease and Dominiek. Willie Johnson was tried Tuesday afternoon, charged, with murder in the killing of Fred Boyd, near Pros perity, in August of this year. It. appeared from the testimony that a crowd -of neg-roes. had been in Pros perity on Saturday and were return ing h'ome that night when an old dif fieuty was renewed. Johnson plead ed self defense. He was represented by Messrs. Blease and Dominick. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of0 manslaught'er. On Wednesday afternoon Tom Ponds was tried on the charge of 'as sault and battery with intent to kill, the alleged assault having been made upon one John Moses. The plea was self defence. The defendant wasS represented by Blease and- Dominick. IAt 10 o 'eloc.k Wednesday night, the ~ jury having failed to agree, Judge ~ Gary ordered a amistrial in the Tom Ponds case. On Thursday morning Ehnore Mays. Lawson Johnson and Lewis Burton were placed on trial ,eharged \vith a arson. The state was assisted 'by Col. W. H.unt. Mr. Cole. L. Blease represented Mayes, and Dr. George B. Cromer and Mr. E. S. Blease the two t o ther defendants. A mass of testi- 0 mony was taken, the evidence of the I state consisted of statements of the t defendantssince the burning and cir eumstantial evidence. The crime al- a leed was the 'burning of Mr. P. N. i Boozer's barn last December, the pro-t Lperty burned being of the value of some $6,000 or $7,000. The defense' offered its testimony on Thursday af ternoon.t .Tde-Gary is right when lie says|g th at pn:biie improvements whereverj g nssile should be permanent im-|a proveents. 1 r What about some street paving. Where do our candidates for mayori jtand on this question? I The farmers atre i.ot rushing thee coton on the market these days and'i they are ri-:t. Jnn. H. Wicker is ar'u~nced as a 1 candidate for school trustee from ~ 'ward 4. President J. A. B. Scherer, and r Prof. A. J. Bowers are in Spartan- f burg attending the Lutheran synod.1I [OW LAIER VIEWS COMING OF AIENS NSWERS QUESTIONS CON CERNING IMIGRATION. avors, "Desirable Class" rrom North of Europe and North of Italy. he State, 6th. Columbia, S. C., Oct. 27, 1907. on. A. C. Latimer, , Belton. S. C. Dear Sir: I am informed that you >mplain that while youthave made ear statements of your opinion buL. immigration, your position has aen misinterpreted. and that the ate has done its part of the misinter retation. fn making the suggestion that fol ws I assume three things: First, th-a 1e alleged misleading comments of e press may have jstification in a honest failure to understand your ttitude. Second, that you are con .dering this matter not as a poliwi an seeking votes, -but as one having ie exalted ambition of the statesman > help his people. Third, that your iews regarding immigration are de ded and clear cut, and you wish em told the peo e, without ambi aity, so clearly, indeed, that he who ins may read. My suggestion is that a give to the sixty odd thousand maders of the State as succinctly as is )mpatible with completeness, infor ation upon the following heads: (The questions appear with the an vers.) I am confdent. Senator, that direct formation from yor upon the sev al points indicated., will remove :ssibility of future misinterpoetation E your views. It will clarify the at osphere. Yours very truly, W m E. Gonzales. Senator Latimer's Reply. Rc.on. S. C., Nov. 2, 1907. [r. W. E. Gonzales, Editor The State. Columbia, S. C. My Dear Sir: I have your letter of ie 27th ult. in which you state, "I m informed that you complain that hile you have made clear statements E your -opinion about immigration, our position has been misinterpreted, ad that the State has done its part the misinterpretation,'' and sug est that I give to the sixty-odd thou md readers of the State information pon certain questions First, you state conditions as fql ws: ''According to the last census outh Carolina had a population of 57,807 whites and 782,321 negroes. he density of population was 44 to 1e square mile in South Carolina, 348 i Massachusetts, and 407 in Rhode land. There were 99, 516 illiterates this state. The South Carolina hool reports for last year show that bout 20,000 more negro children than hite children are going to school.'' As to this statement, I am familiar rith the figures you give and deplore ie situation as much as you or any ther patriotic citizen of the state. [oweve'r, it is a condition for which Ke present generation is not respon ible. We are face to face with it, nd it is our. duty to deal with it in an itelligent and patriotic way. I con ad that the elass of immigraats t.hat am opposed to coming to South ~arolina will in no way relieve the tuation. but will tend to complicate d further distrub existing condi ons. The illiterate, low-bred natives f southern Europe are in no way ualified for citizenship under a re ubcan form of government, nor to id the present white population in airitaining white supremacy. They re coming to the United States with ht their families, and to bring them ito the south, if we could keep them re, whe're we have so many negroes, :il, in my judgmient, result in a ross 'breed with the ne.rro and make he nroblem still more difficult to andle. We eah not hope to a;simi rte these people. :nor have t:hem to n considera-ble extent intermarry ith our white population. They do ot speak our language, and they dif r with our people cn standards of Ming and ideas of g-overnment. They have not eome to the United States in any considerable numbers until with in the last S or 10 years and are not proving satisfactory anywhere they have gone. Below I quote your questions and f.llowing each with my answer: (a) Question: "In these circum stanees, Senator, do you believe de pendence upon a nat'ral increase will result in freeing South Carolina from a negro majority?" Answer: I be- ] lieve it will.be far better to depend upon the natural increase a:d the general prosperous conditions w'ich I prevail in the south to secure the de sired increase in our white popula tion than to take chances on unde sirable immigrants. (b) Question: "Do you advocate;1 extending a welcome to all white for eigners that are intelligent, sober, in dutrious, law-abiding and God-fear ing, but particularly preferring those from the British Isles, Norway, Sweden. Germany, Holland and north of Italy?" Answer: If they come of their own accord, I answer yes, abso lutely. (c) Question: "Do you prefer even to these foreigners the same class of people from the Eastern, Middle, New Englan'd and Western States, that know the language and the country's cusfomsl'" Answer: Of course I do, and I believe this would be the best class'of people that could come here. Second: (d) Question: "Under the laws creating the South Carolina bu reau, is it possible for that bureau, or its officers, to solicit or in other. way encourage immigration except from the British Isles and the north ern countries of Europe?" Ans,wer: The act referred to states plainly the duty of the commissioner of immigra tion, and I have made no criticism of the efforts of the commissioner to carry out the requirements of the aet of the -legislature. (e)..Question: "Is there evidence or belief that as much as one dollar of pu:blic money has been used by the South Carolina immigration bureau to defray the expenses of immigrants to this country?".Answer: In answer to this I would like to know what be came of 'the appropriation made by the legislature, outside of the salary of the commissioner and necessary clerical expenses, and why it was urg ed upon the legislature at its last ses sion ihat .$20,000 be appropriated,1 with the result that .$10,000 was ap propriated i It is my opinion that thee'immigrants were -brought here in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Federal law. In response to a complaint made to congress that during the strike in the coal fields a few years ago the operators brought over from Europe immigrants under a contract to take the places of the strikers in the coal mines, congress passed a law forbidding the impor taion of contract laborers. The im migrants brought over on the Witte kind had their expenses paid and claim that they were promised em ployment here at specified wages; and in my judgment they were in every sense contract laborers. If the mon ey was not used in aiding t.hem in coming here, I do not see for what purpose it was wanted. (f) Qnestion: ''Under the terms of the existing national immigration law, as construed by- the Washigton au thorities. is it now possi-ble for the agent of any state to use any mnoney, public or private, to pay the passage of immigrants to this country?'' An swer: it is a violation of the Federal law to use money, either public or private, in aiding immigrants to come to the UTnited States. But the secre tary of the department of commerce and labor under a former ruling con Istrued the law differently, and under ~that construction the officers of the state were exempted from the penal. ties of the law. It is my judgment that, as the spirit of the law was violated in bringinz over the Witte Ikind immigrants, it is beinz violated now by thousands of immigrants who are comi:Tw to thep United States, the mner to pay vL1 passage being sent hy their rc1t1 k-es who are already n the V it': :.': -e an:1 hv corpora tions to s'rms companies who. through their agents selling tickets abroad, instruct the immigrants as to th ae tey mst give when ex WINS BANANA SUIT. V 3upreme Court Decides 'Case Against F the Seaboard-Amount Sued for was $1.75. c WVashington cor. The State. e Washington, Nov. 4.-Seegers & I 3ro., of Columbia will get their $1.75 t or which they sued the Seaboard Air Gine railroad and will get also the $50 & >enalty from the road for not settling v ts claim wilthin 40 days, as the law d )f South Carolina provides. a The supreme court of the United t tates today handed down a decision d iffirming the decision of the supreme ourt of South Carolina. Seegers & Bro. shipped a bunch of 4 ananas from Columbia to MeBee. I Wfhen the bananas reached MeBee s ;hey were so damaged that the 'Con- V ignee refused to accept them. Seegers I >ut in a claim' for $1.50, the value of 't he hananas and 25 cents for the reight. 'The claim was not settled within 40 days and Seegers sued, C laiming the addiltional $50 penalty c lor delay in settling. i The magistrate's court found in fa- I imined at the port of entry to our )fficers as to how they got the money t -o pay their passage. 1 Third: (g) Question: "Do you ad- e 7ocate making more stringent United t ktates-laws governing immigration,-sO I ,hat this country may be better safe- C uarded against inflow of the lawless, i he base, the ignorant and the pauper s flemenits?" Answer: I do. First, I im opopsed to any immigrant coming x .nto the United S'tates who can not c ead and write his own language. He r mn not take an intelligent part. in t >ur government, nor is he qualified 1 or suffrage in South Carolina and I many other states. Second, I shall t )ffer an amendment prohibiting any I immigrant landing in the United 1 States who does ttot bring a certificate >f good character from the proper >ffiial of the government from I whence he comes. This will prohibit many criminals and undesirable im nigrants who are leaving their coun- I try in order to escape prosecution for c rime, and it is not suh a require- t ment as will prove a hardship on. the s esirable class of immigrants, as in c European countries a complete re- I ord is kept of all the people from t heir birth to their death. Third, I t favor a provision prohibiting over 50, 30 immigrants of any one national ity, comning to the United States- a vea, *which will further reduce the aumber of undesirable from southern 4l Europe. It will not, however, affect any f the countries of northern Eu rope, as last year only 36,000 came I from Germany, whichi was more than came from any country of northern Europe, while albout 500,000 camei from southern Italy. (h) Question: "'Do you believe, as a business man, that the wide puibli-i city attained throughout the United 1 ~Sates by South Carolina's 'advaite-i ed' or 'progressive' movement in be half of immigration, has been bene ficial or injunious, to this state in the estimation of the people of the Unit- 1 ed States?'' Answer: I do not knowi what estimate the people of the Unit ed States place upon the publicity re ferred to. However, I know of no publiity that should have worked in-a jury to South Carolina. ~l (i) Quesftion: ''Does your plan for the drainage of 'swamp lands in lower 1 So'ith Carolina by the nationi govern ment contemplate-as in national ir rigation of Western deserts-that the cost incurred shall remain a claim 'iy"r the land 'by the general govern ment?' Answer: The bill I introdue ed in congress for the purpose of draining the swamp lands is very similar to the bill for national irri eation. and does provide that the cost ie!red shall be paid in annual in -talimets by the owners of the land; y: &b- unev is to be furnished with out i:dferest. as~ is the case in nqtional rr: a on. I have t.ried to answer your ques tiofs 'nl the& fit in which I believe voz have asked them. I have no de sire ;N diseussing this question to ac e i.ch any other object than to serve the best interest of our people Verytruly yours, A. C. Tatmer. 'or of Seegers, but the ireuit court ave the $1.75 and eut off the $50 enalty. The supreme court of South Car lina reversed the circuit court's de ision respecting the penalty and the ase went to the supreme eogrV of the Tnited States, which today sustained he supreme court of South Carolina. The railroad claimed that the South 'arolina law fixing the $50 penalty ras unconstitutional in that it was iseriminatory against railroads, not pplying to other corporations, and hat ,it was taking property without Lue process of law. The supreme court declares that the aw is constitutional, that it applies o all common carriers, and Justice rewer in han' down the decision aid in effect tat it was a good ser ice rendered, by Seegers & Bro., as aost small shippers would not go to he expense of making a contest. Justice Brewer said: "It is not an act leveled against orporatione alone, but against all ommon earners.- The elassification s based upon the nature of the buui ess that business being of a4publia haraeter. "Further, the~matter to be adjus ed is one peculiarly within the :nowledge of the carrier. It receiv s the goods and has them in its OeS ody until the carriage is completed. t knows what it received and what it elivered. It knows What injury was ,one during the shipment and how it ras done. "While in this ease the penalty aay be large compared with the value If the shipment, yet it must be re aembered that small shipments are he ones which especially need the '1 41tection of pC-Iaa statutes like this. f a lar.e amomit is in controversy he. -hipper can aff.td to litigate. Vhee there is but the 1 rifle of a dbl ar or two the 'hi: ai n not,sell ff-ad a l:in,nit. nnd y:-t .atie re juires that hi-; elaim be- dy:tad and iid with reac.mabk- pron pness." .7xh McG.ef.. The above brief dispatch from Vashington is the final chapter in ne of the hardest fo.ught legal bat les in this state in years, and.the cn titutionality of an important statute of South Carolina is upheld by the izhest tribunal in the country, see ion 1711 of the- code, which provides hat all claims for loss or damage' sanst any common carrier must be aid within 60 days, or refusal to pay ame must be made within that time. The case was first heard by Magis-. ' rate Samuel H. Ried at Cheraw, who -endered a decision in favor of .the >laitiff. Th1e case grew out of the . oss of a bunch of bananas shipped 'rom .Columbia to Mr. Seegers,, a nereh ant at MeBee, Chesterfield coun ;y. A claim for $1.75 was filed with ;he agent of the railroad company at keBee, 'but he failed to take any no ;ice of it within the 60 days required y law. The plaintiff then began suit n Magistrate Reid's eourt for the amount of the damages, pflus 495 yenalty as provided in section 1711. Hon. W. P. Pollock of Cheraw was ;he attorney for Mr. Seegers. The ailroad .compaAy served notice of ap eal from Magistrate Reid's decision id from there the case was carried ~rom 7court to court until it finally reaehed t'he suapreme court of the Jnited States. The law under which this case was >rought, and which the railroad com anies were anxious to have annufl d, reads as follows: .Setion 1711. All corpmon carriers loing business in this state shal-l be -equ.ired to pay for or refuse to pay 'or all loss, breakage or damage from reakage. damage or loss of articles ~hipped over the lines of said common barriers without 60 days from the ie a claim for said article ori~arti les so lost, broken or damaged shall e made. "Tn case the said common carrier ha not pay or refuse to pay said ?laim for said loss, breakare or dam re as set out in section 171.0 within :he 60 days there in nrovided for, :hen the said common carrier shall be able fojr the sum of $50 for each meh offense as penalty, in addition to the amount of said loss or damage, to be collected by the claimant in my court having jurisidietion of the same.' S