Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

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

MANNING. S. C.. (XT 13- 1909. PUBLIStED EVERY WEDNESDA SenSCRIPION RATES: Fou months....-----------. ----------. ADi'ERTISING RATF.S: Onc square, one tIme. 1: each subseq ue nrt sertion. . cents. Obttuaries and Tributes Respect charged for as reguIvr adver.ie-t Ubcra. contracts made !or three. six and ::wrc Communa1MtIons must be accompan.z'I by t! real rame and addrews of the writer in order rPftive attention. 'Co co-munication o: a personaa cna:ract wM e publisbed except as an adversemenL Entered at the Postof!ce at Mancinc a S3. Ond CL-% matter. THE STATES APFROVAL IS WORTH HA ING. BUT Our contemporary The Stat< of Columbia is determined t carry out its policy of trying t make the future juries rende verdicts according to the Stat instead of according to law an. evidence, and while we are n< - prejudiced against a governmer by newspapers in the sense th: the expression is used by a cer tain high offici-d of this Statu yet we would regard it as excee ingly unfortunate if the newspa pers had the power to run th government, cxrtrol verdict: and have the life and liberty < the citizens entrusted to thei keeping. Ever since the now notoriot Farnum- verdict, our Columbi contemporary has beeg in labo: and has been trying to gi-e birt to a code of morals which mus be accepted by the other newspa pers or suffer the serious cons auences of the Sate's lectum and is a great temptation to avoi such dire consequences. It evident that a majority of tber rather than oecome enveloped i a cloud of the State's displeason trail in behind that great dail; and bask in the sunshine of i1 approval. We too would like t have that paper's approval, an occassionally we manage to g it. but it frequently happens tha our sight does not lead us in.th same direction, and the result i we see things and view matter differently. Because of this con dition however, we do not los our temper.and indulge in spiti ful iuendoes, creating false in pressions of .he motives promp ing our contemporary, no, w prefer to believe its contrary c opposite views is the resu of ignorance, that it needs educa ting mentally as well as othe: wise, then when that has bee done, there is hope "The State will realize, it -has not now an neyer has had a monoply of th brains and virtue. The "State" lays much stres -o the testimony of Wylie, San uels and Gage, the first two ar confessed partners in crime, an so far as -ve are concerned th only testimoney worth coasidermn was that of Gage. whose condu< was not becoming, but we believ he told the triith, and concedin it, occupying a confidental rels tion; he assumed the role C a detective and while thus spyin he gave to Samuels a marked bi: in paymient of a draft signed b Farnum, and subsequently Wyli dpsedwith Gage the bill tha hhad marked. What does the prove? It proves that Samuel go a Farnum draft cashed i Ga~s bank, and later Wylie de Kposited the bill that Gage ha marked, which is at most, a cii cumstance pointing that Samuel gave Wylie the marked bill. Bi 1;herewasabsolutelyno testimon showing- that Farnum gave tha drafttio his employee Samuels t bribe Wylie, and the jury wa trying the case by the law an the evidence as they heardi from the bench and stand, an were not there to guess, or sur pose tL.at Farnum gave that dral to his man Samuels to bribe Mi Wyliethey had, as well as w remember the testimony. as muc] right to reach the conclusion tha this draft was for money to mee rebate for goods purchased fror Farnum, which the Judge charg ed was not a violation of law, an the evidence showed that Farnur could not have sold to the board the trusted'officials of the State had he refused to comply wit: their demands-the giving of re bates. -Therefore according t * our view the testimony of th men who acknowledge they hay *wronged the State is really no corroborated, only so far asi .was proved there was a dral given, and circumstances poii to a certain bill returning for de posit, but the only connectio: proven, that Farnum had witi *the draft was his name signed t it. no proof that the draft wa not ajloan, or a rebate on the pur chase price of the good sold, bet paid, or what not. All tha was proven was that Samuel had eashed a Farnum dratt, an Wylie subsequently deposite some of the money paid to Sam~ uels On such evidence a jur; could not convict and compi: with their oaths. The State seems to think. be cause the defense did not put u: testimony in its own behalf, an because there was not a word ii coatradiction of the prosecution testirmony, it was sufficient to sat isfy the jury the defendant wa guilty. Such reasoning will no do in this enlightened country where it is the constitutiona right of every man to require th State to prove its case beyon< a reasonable doubt, and he is no *required to open his mouth in hi own defense: it is to be suppose that where the accused does nc go on the stand to testify in hi own, bhalf, it s becaue he ha found no evidene-1 the prosecu tion has produced that a jury of his Peers will convict upon: therefore there is no just reason, . because the defendant did not avail himself of the privilege to .go on the stand. to count it y against him. and sar he is guilty. We are not so sure "that no one has suggested that Wvlie perjured himself in order to give s damaging evidence against Far nuin." Surely Tho State would not vouch for the truth of Wylie's testimony, who adnitted to coun sel for the defence that he lied when not under oath. We iuay differ frequently with out con 0;ttefporary in many things,. but we have nt ver doubte-d its hones ty, and we would not believe that cit would stand sponsor for a man who sells himself to - give testimony, e v en th e - price being immunty from rosecution, and this is just what Wylie did. and the corro - borative evidence he furnishes is o another bought witness. The * State cannot stand defender of .r such men, and the testimony of eIMr. Gage we contend. does not d convince the peblic that Farnum t gasc his draft to bribe an officer t of the State. t The Columbia State fails -to -understand how any law respect ing person can question the l completeness of the proofs offer - ed the State." Its editor should e crawl out ot his shell of preju , dice. go among the masses, rub f up against the unprejudiced. and r perhaps he will discover that the weight of sentiment will be in s line with the position this aews a paper has taken. Not however - as a defender of Mr. Farnurm, as ii The State would have it appear t by reproducing parts of TIE - TiDES editorials, but from con - clusions reached after reading . the stenographic reports of the d testimony as published in The s State. n I We did not give our readers n the benefit of all the evidence !, against Farnum, because of inab r, ility to do so, but we deny 'that s wehave orareshieldingFarnum, o and answering the State's ques d tion, "Did THE TmES wish the kt evidence against Fanum to con t vice the jury?" We answer, that e with the evidence presented that , jury. were we on it, we would s not have consented to a verdict - of guilty, because, notwithstand e ing the State's view to the con - trary, there was no evidence to L- Iconvict Mr. Farnum of crime. I Now if the State's question had e read "would .e have Mr. Farnum r convicted,"' we should say, most t assuredly yes, if the testimony, 6. beyond a reasonable doubt, jus - tified such a verdict. Whenever a any man whether it be Mr. Far " num or the editor of The State is d charged with crime, and is haled e before the court heis to betried by the law, and he is entitled to s all the protection: the fundament -al law of the land giyes him. e were this not true, life, liberty Sand property, would not be safe a from the prejudices anid whims of partiza newspapers, and in t stead of the courts being pure, and free from bias, they would soon becono like clay in the pot ter's band to be for or against, as ~the newspapers may will to mould the sentiment. jJuries sometimes make mis takes, but not any oftener than eao the newspapers, and it is bet t ter for a jury to err in acquitting tan accused, than to yield to pop ular wrath that has been made, and fnnedinto flame by a parti zan press, and convict wrongful ly~iBWhy, The State is right now making a strong effort to build a sentiment againt those yet to 1be tried on the graft cha~rges; it is so intense in its prejudice that we believe it will destroy all Ichance of getting a conviction at all, matters not what the evi 1dence, and well may the State t of South Carolina cry out, "God save us from our friends." "THE ETHICS OF BA13G." .It seems to be the habit of the aColumbia newspapers when crit i icising the editorial utterances V of another newspaper to give its t readers only a part of what the m paper being criticised by them 1 said, thus frequently misleading - their own readers, and doing the l criticised paper an injustice. In i its issue of the 5th, The Daily - 'Record of Columbia, makes the Sfollowing comment, but it did a not give to its readers the whole -of the editorial in TaE TiES: S"An editorial article, recently re printed in full, THE -\AfNING TIMEs says: T 'he .supositio is that business in n bank is a confdential relation, and t when one of the officers voluntarily as tsumes the- role of detective- and ex poses the bank's transactions with its natrons, that officer is no-, fit to hiave - he confidence of business men." 1 THE TIMES here holds up to youngr 1 bank employees a standard of banking ethics that will hardly bear analvais. A I is dangerous and full of potentailities for mischief. -"Suppose circumstances that come to his inowledge in the course of business lead a bank official to suspect that his bank Is beingr used by a customer to forward certain highly criminal opera tions. And suppose, further, that the official in question should quietly take seps to ascertain whether his suspic ' inswee jstfidand meantime keep these suspicions absolutely to himself. 7 Suppose then, developments from his investugation should seem to confirm his suspicions. Womuld THE~ TLMIs - maintain that the official was doing his duty to his employers and his co-n munity if he failed to inform the presi dent of his bank of the situation, or failed to tell the truth when sworn? S By what course of reasoning does - Tai: TIMES reach its implied conclu sion that a bank ofticial should extend to plainly criminal operations that sacred confidence in which he is bound ,to hold all legitimate n-ansactions that I come to nils knowledge in the course of: duty? It is admittedly immnoral for any citizen to shield by his silence~ those whom he discovers to be crimi t nals. Does the citizen become any the less a citizen when he happens to take employment in a bank? In n o countrv has it been held at any time that ban~k tin relations are privileged like thos.e S of priest and parishioner or lawyer and to safeguard the n:egity and protect te the good name of his bank? Does he owe nothin to the public? Is a crimi na! to be shielded and protected. even afrordid every couvenience for his wronE-doing. by a bank's officials, I wi mnereiy &eeaLu.e he happen, to be a de positor of that bank*' It is a strange gospel Tim TDIES M; b-in"s to voung men starting their m4 busines careers as bank clerks. TnE an TiM-S would not utind its ideas popular.Of it is to be hoped.among- the members of the South Carolina Banker'; Associa th The suppositions, The Record ou indulges in, will not do in argu- a u ment, but granting tnat it does. tr then we say whenever a bank official has reasons to believe that a patron of his bank is do ing a dishonest business, and he does not propose to have his St bank converted into -a fence" to receive ill-gotten gains. the a moment he makes the discovery. he should tell the patron of his I suspicions. and require him to n withdraw his business from the 1 biank. It not will do for the bank i oflicial to continae, and perhaps t solicit the business of a dishon est man. and then when occasion tr arises. as we understand arose t in the Chester bank--the cashier, st whose suspicions were aroused, contin.ued business with the sus- '1f pected parties,. and said nothing - I until the president of his bank t became an opponent of one of the suspected criminals for the otfice of mayor of the city of Chester: it was not until then did this casiier make known the transaction and gratifying an idle br curiosity, and then only, to drive fir votes away from the man who, P was oppoxsing his employer. We do not pi ftend to say that Pl a bank should be a screen for! criminal onerations. but we do ei say that the relations between e patron and bank are strictly P' contidential and, that when an it officer of a bank plays the role of detective and becomes a t "spotter" on one whose business, hi and patronage he is receiving pr and continues -to receive. he is not carrying out in good faith C' that contidence the patron hasIW a right to expect, and which isi promised by every bank. There are times when a bank br official must expose the transac- hi tions of his bank, but that is th when a court of competent jiu. s- it diction issues the proper author- re ity for him to come into court h ard testify from the bank's re ro cords, of course, in that case he r( must tell the truth, the whole . truth, and nothing but the truth, ja 1 'be but we contend, that until then, ci he has no right to tell anybody re of what is done in that bank, and sh when he does. it is a breach of th confidence. re The Record says, and we agree re with it. -It is admittedly im- th moral for any citizen to shield tha by his silence those whom he dIscovers to be criminals." Yes, a and if the cashier of the Chester c bank upon his discovery of crime among a couple of the bank's patrons, had at once re quired those patrons to with draw their funds because of the discovery, in our opinion, he S would fare better in general esti- S mation, but -'one cannot keep his cake and eat it too." When 0 be accepted the deposits of these o men, especially after his suspic ions were aroused. he could no longer claim the right to expose a them on the ground that their hi; oerations were unlawful. No, a criminal is not to be shielded t and protected, nor even afforded t a convenience for his wrong-do ing, by a bank's officials, because c be happens to be a depositor. But when it becomes known orfe suspected that the bank is being used by criminals, then is the time for an honest bank to rid O ne itself of the businessof the crimi- or nals, not wait for a municipal th election. There is ample pro-fl tection in the law for the public',o without a man supposedly occu- d pying a confidential business re-'d lation becoming a spy on the g movements of those confiding w their trust in that bank. When the law, in the interest of justice, wants information pr from a bank there is a proper o way to get it, and that is under stood by the patron when he1 opens an account, hence when thas an offictal gives up information on the mandate of a court, the oficer giving theJy information has not violated a confidence with t his patron, because the conti dence is so received. We there- eit fore insist that no bank official I e has any right in morals or in law g to expose the relations existing cit between bank and patron with- foa out the patron's consent, unless th reqired to do so by a competent l authority, and we further con tend that when a bank receives ti deposits of a patron that it suspects is doing a business which is criminal, ithas accepted~m such a trust that it has no right - to violate, and if it does violate that trust, it is no longer to be pr trusted by others, on the princi- fu] pal that if a man proves himself! a unworthy of trust in one case, o he is no longer to be trusted mnp any c-ase. --False in one, false in many."a Our contemporary regards our co: views - strange gospel." but it would be surprising if we all -iewed matter-s alike. There "~gospel" is not strange or new:ca we believe it is the common be lief that this relation is strictly Th condental, and in a well rego-pe lated bank, a cashier exposing les: the business of the institution voluntarily, would lose his job. *sc< more especially -would his ser- er: vices be disensed with if lie co made that exposure to;:ain some me( advantage over a man lie was nu opposing in a municipal cam- to paign. Now when the cashier e of the Chester bank was on the lar stand lie could do nothing else i-e: than tell the tr-uth, and while we wvi do not see where his testimony of proedthat the accused bribed St: stify that he paid a certain trked bill out to Samuels, and at same bill was deposited by ylie. that's alright. It is not iat Mr. Gage testified on the .nd that we object to, it is the Lnner of the transaction being ide known, which we regard act of bad faith on the part a bank official receiving a ist, making for his bank what a deposit profits, and then with t being required by lawful thority to do so, violate the 2st reposed. AND NOW FOR THE LAW. Under the caption "speak a >rd for the law, please" The ate would have THE TIMEs tc swer the question "When, for ample, did even one self-con .sed "liar" testify?" Unfortu tely we do not keep a newspa r after we have finished read it, but it is our recollection at we read in the Columbia ate which professes to give a 11 and complete report of the als, where the prosecution's ir witness, Mr. Wylie. in ans !r to a question from counsel r the defense, admitted that he 41, and undertook to excuse ruself by saying, that when he [d the lie he was not sworn. Now, as to the other question, nd what about the Farnum aft for $1,125?" Well, if there ts any testimony which proved at the draft was given as a ibe, we have been unable tc d it in the State's full and com ete report of the trial. It was oven that Samuels cashed a aft signed by Farnum, or rath purporting to have been sign by Farnum, but that did not ove Farnum signed the draft, r did it prove, if he did sign it, was in payment of a bribe. Oh, 'he State" will probably say, at Wylie says, it was given tc m as a bribe. But Wylie was omised immunity from prose tion, if he would give testi >ny, and being a shrewd man, io loves the dollar more than s soul, would rather say, this >ney was given to him as a ibe, because he was promised s freedom, rather than to say, e draft was for a rebate, for if was a rebate and he put the bate in his pocket, it would ye been a confession that he bbed the State, and while he )uld have been relieved of a I sentence, he would not have en relieved of being forced by a ril actionr from disgorging this bate to the State. Wylie was rewd enough to know that ere is a difference between a bate and a bribe. A rebate, ac rding to the law as given to e jury from the bench, a seller d a right to give, an officer had right to accept, but if the offi r failed to turn that rebate re ived into the treasury, he would guilty of crime, but the n who gave the rebate, >uld have committed no ense, not only would the icer be guilty of crime, but the ate could recover if he has any operty to recover out of. There e it is easy to understand why ylie would prefer the ignomny acknowledging himself a bribe ser, than to confess his ill-got 1 money belongs to the State, d subject to be forced from We have tried to comply with a &Mate's request to "speak a >rd for the law" as it applies the issue. It is true that our atemporary did not single out one as accomplices," but it re -red to those newspapers that re not echoing the views given t by the State, and as this wspaper was one of the four fire, we had a right to assume *t we were included in the mber, and willing to put rsel~f in the attitude of the "hit g." THE TIES is not good at esing conundrums, and must afess it does not understand iat the State means by the sug stion that "the State of South rolina, as represented by the asecution, may hold views up this point. THE TIMts might Sthem-for personal use." 'In nuch as THE TIME is not in a confidence of those who rep sent the prosecution, the mys ring words are lost upon us. Further, we have information tt not only are the. views as pressed in THE TIMEs the tws of thousands of citizens of uth Carolina, but they are the tws of a large portion of the izens of the city of Columbia, -we are reliably informed that i sentiment in the-city is large divided as to the conclusion of Sjury which had the verdict to ider. We clip this amusing little par rph to show the "ugly hu >r" of our contemporary, that aways so fair, and reports the >ceedings of a trial the whole mtry is deeply interested in, 1, complete and without fear, roir or prejcdice the entire >ceedings, even mentioning all the questions and answers, by Lo the questions are asked, d by whom answered, yes our itemporary is absolutely fair(?) peakin:: of the Farauum jurors. Edi Appet asserts: "They are daily ders of The State." We emnphati l' deny Lhe charge and repel with. ination the covert insinuation are are only six or seven daily read of The State, in'zluding Senator Ap t, who think just like that thought ;twelve. he indignant denial, and >rnful repudiation of sev Ll of the citizens of Richiand mty who as "good and lawful n" were members of the Far. mn jury, is indeed a revelation us, because we cannot con e, how any citizen of Rich td can possibly do without Lding The State, and of course, iIe we did assert the members that jury were readers of The ite, the mistake was a natural . and if they are not regular OF N Demonstrating XM ing shown and tesi our traveling repre Stock now selling M.L. subscribers, nor daily purchas- 1 ers, then they should be borrow- A G R i ers, so that they might know who is who, and what is demand-: ed of them by the exacting editor of that always fair and unpreju- Kidney Diseases Ar diced (?) newspaper. for Manning p~eo; It is settled that Cook did not Tezetdue get to the North Pole. "I-tookistathygtar -a,-shoo," and "Ah-pe-lah"si~rrrcgie say so, and who is it to disputeIheac.nroun either I-took-shoo, or his fel- ns.lmao rn low eskimo? As long as the con troversv lasts Dr-. Cook will give orkiey.Cr to the public a lot of hot air that hcrtiadsf he brought home with him fromKinyPlswhh the rozn rgios, a somuc z-ghThe rea ian e hisc per ast haahe nrousne:3 ne, Sumba.. ria: I gvme ea suceslief We shallrkidneys C ureD bia'moningdaiy t excse S oten et a saf. from ts fae NeberycorrK-iweyo Pilqls.t hic th roen wegions, trbe sof urh .M bc e own no areaen to~u giv thems m ed iha han moask Howevrth Dns seeidnel~s bia'sbmorningn disyt excsenl us otem aceorsitedt d fro studn fker Ntemprroraryed uer too frequeent at pondent acout have hruis fur - -tebaes and p own nd o nt cre o b buden thoug kinyo hir spell correctly, but all the same ammore-th~an please he has a clear idea of what the I obtained from Doat geeral sentiment is. Fotr Milburn dea sole agents~ for the 1U The citizens of Chester have Remember the n demanded the resignation of their take no other. Mayor Henry Samuels, who has recently broke into notoriety by STATE OF SOU1 becoming an immnuned witness for the State in the graft cases. 010yO The testimo-ny given by Samuels' onyo wassufficient, if he had any shame COURT OF C&)l left, thaecaused him not onl T. WV. Lee and R~. D. to resign the mayoralty of Ches- and T.-ustees under ter, but to go somewhere and -.A e for Miss: hang himself. He gave to the Pliz it ,aa world a sworn statement which Martha V. Beard. XE forever damns him in the estimna- FretL er tion of decent pgple.j nirtro THE TIMES editor is honor-ed Dc with an invitation to lunch wth UDRADB ocason ForstL.deardof Preidnt af onthdminao of t j - Jadgmet COredrofn hescirantTt of the inccaion fmonzPleas in thed hismmiitte whuich Stray h Eie on, or die Noveberthb accompany s~bing June d1 . ti ce.ac wihacek.o l g acton tof h the mItto is atrete rofuind oe-h.lt Caredo th ciaof the invitation caMaacetddn n:. in said cS comite a hc y ften Fr lea Nor orb lni toicept wthe imnvtatio this f. hh t day oe oevner wihacec o t1h. Ic Loat trat of la kindho groceiaes ae *d Juea resad:ed Sot remeanced.Isexrml adubtful and one-half ares V ifhed vitor, cat hoe. beinptedsaane Tra artcl wih ijsta thsi erd wc iete Yss~ Ho efer, Che o appredatesedhe - aic fC kindaapl~i~' rememberan, .a will canty of Dns and I di a porilent oast the da.TST- is- CokrfomeLy rtiushd visitor antbt home ~u..U beint theact-ne lrac leafnc1ia eCanno ea~ C~Ued. cred, in said o C by z~e lo naptcaon . they cao t, rach t he county lakH .dacieaa poubcn ofhen ea tueet ntord y ~ on te N At byS ed you have a rumbling sound or imperfect hear- s, formr vof Be: ind ..1 when it is entirely lo,.edI deafrness is , -r the rsult, and unicas. the innammation ca bej .(or.ad akn out andi tbLs Lube restored to its. r.ormal; Fast by land of E-itat .ondition.hrin wil bedestoyed forever: none and \\'en by and cae out of ten are cau.'ed by catarrh. whlihi et-:big h r n. t hn: hut an intiamed condition of the mu- lii .i i h w- will rive One Hundred Dollara for ani dee reco rded n a at of De-afncss~ (cau.%ed by cat-arrh) tha can N , ..pg-4 . not beureIby HLairs Catarrh cure. .send f!F - ircula'. fie-- Purchaser to pay F. J. CHENEY &CO., Toedio. O. LLINS' Telephone Co. EWARK, N. J. ireless Telephones are'now be ;ed at the new Court Hous6 by sentative, Mr. W. E. REARDON. at 4.00. ROSEN WAD, Manager for'South Carolina. DELAY, STATE OF SOUTH QAROLINA, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, IN Coonty of Clareodon- Clarndon County -INCOURT OF COMMON PLEAS. e Too Dangerous Bank of Clarendon, Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. -agazinst The Citizen's Bank of Timmonsville, le to Neglect. Darkie Ham. Lillie Johnson, Lula Plaintiff. 1Phelps. Della Taylor. Sarah Sey- against f kidney troubles Imore, Joe Ham. Esther WiseliFrankJeuSihadLia.SmhDfn n hold before th Ham, Jr., Addie Ham. Eve Ham, deuSiha u el .SmtDfn hen. Health is and J. A. Weinberg. Defendants. den. Dcre ded Backache.! Deeree. *UNDER AND BYVIRTUE OP' A iS, iameres, ore- UND ER AND BY VI RT UE OF A Decretal Order of the Court of Common y toubesdrosyJudgment Order of the Court of Comn- Pleas for Clarendon County, dated the di.tc fglect mon P leas, im the above strated ac- *2nd day of October, 1909, I will sell to .he k doesc with z" to mec directed. bearing date of the hihbest bidder for cash, 00 Monday, the idnys ithOctober 2nd. 1909. 1 will sell at pub-Ithe 1st day of November, A. D., 1909, has cred eopl lie aucr ion, to the highest bidder, for the same being salesday, in front of the has ure peplecash, at Clarendoni Court House, att Court House at M\anning, in-said Coun-. t" i'ne St.. Flor- Manning., in said county, within the ty, within legal hours of sale, the fol on's Kidney Pills lega1 hours for judicial sales, on Mon- lowing real estate: :td I do not hesi- day, the 1st da. of November, 1909, Al the right, title and interest of the. endorsement The bngsalesday, th~e following describ- said Jehd Smith In and to that piece. re highly coloredI ed real estate: prcel or tract of land lying. boing and rk sediinent and .All that piece, parcel or tract of situate in the County of Clarendon and d pain ful in oas land ly ing, being~ and situate in Clar. State aforesaid, containing one hundred eary all the time en-don County. State afores.aid, con- rand twenty five (125) acres, more or shooi t inges inr elvn(1jce n one less, and bounded and- buttig as fel finally read about as follows: North by lands n.ow or lows, to wit: North by lands of W. J. and began taking" fornierly of Mrs. F. A. Logan; East Buddin and Eliza Coker: East by lands ectonls. They li- and South-east by lands now or for- of J. E. Beard, R. W Coker and Joe ns, soon stopping merly of thre estate of M. Levi, and Wheeler: South by H. Gamble and Pad ins and restoring on the South and WVest by lands now ding Swamp: and lands of A. C. Hud ormal condition I or formerly of the estate of T. ,J son. The interest the said Jehu Smith dwith the results Cole. For a more particular descrip- being an undivided one-third of same. s Kidney Pill.'. tion of said eleven acres reference Purchaser to pay for papers. ~r.Pic 50 cents. may be had to a piat of' the s?.ra]e re- . E. B. GAMBLE, ualo. New York/ corded in the office of Clerk of Court Sherid Clarendon County. aited tates for saidl County, in Book B, 3, pages________________ utedasn 295 and 296 tmeDoa s-nd Purchaser to pay fr. paeE, CAOIN, Sheriff of Clarendon Count y. for cairdreu4 a~f.wie...Ma larendon, MON PLEAS. To Our Friends and Customers : Lee as Executors the Will of Mrs. sarah Howell Lee, iIiam D. Berd THE MANNING OIL MILL has been recently bought d S. D. Powell, from the SOt!.h At antic Oil Co., and at the beginning of our e Etat o J.E.career under the ' esent ownership we extend our thanks to all re. of our friends for Lheir support and patronage. VIRTUE OF A We have tried itgthe past to deserve your support by being b~Ove*tatedoac- absolutely fair and honest with all of our customers, and we ask , bearing date of for a continuance of your support for the following additional ill sell at public hest bidder for reasons: ourt House. at FIRST : Ours is a local comnpany-not a dollar of its al aes on 2aon-. stock is owned outside of South Carolina. efowmbe,g 1de-ECN :We Lay arnnually to the Town and County e flloingde-Treasurers over $600 taxes which helps that much towards pay a which - . nthe expenses of our local government. iruae n lae- T HIR D: it costs us about $30,000 per year to manufacture ate, on the North th~e seed we purchase, and of this amount, $20,000 is spent right If' .. E.>ikar. here at Manningt. In other words, when you sell us a ton of seed .rated by the Pub- (GO 2- hushels) you get market price for the seed and the comn land0 of -,imn munity gets $4 of the amount it costs to manufacture them. When ~est by land ofIyou sell a toni of seed to the other floyou get the mrakeprc on.veedto -1 H for the seed. and SOME OTHER COMMUNITY gets the benefit ms. iby deed r-of th~e muoney paid out to manufacture them. ,at ;:te 4. We could mention a number of other reasons, but we think :t'the above is suflicient to convince you that it pays to patronize and State. bound- home industries. nd of .1. HI. Gib- Yours very truy rd:South~ by la'd- uy if H. I'. Gibbon': of F.,:a:e i'. - eseManning Oil Mil, for papers. -. G- MBl- C. R. SPROTT. President and Treasurer