The herald and news. (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, November 08, 1907, Image 1
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