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.

A GREAT SPEECH. .CONGRESSMAN PATTERSON OF BARNWELL TALKS PLAINLY. Ho Want? tho (hoot Power Now Ex orcised by Federal Judges Limited und Held Within Due Hounds. Spoeeh of Congressman James O. Patterson, of Barnwell, in thu House of Representatives, March 2, 1908. Tho House being in Committee of the Whole House on tho state of tho "Union, and having under considera tion the bill (ll. R. 1 8847) making appropriations for tho postal sur vive Mr Patterson said: Mr. Chairman: Thc. distinguished Bontleuien of this House who have in dulged in speech making at this session of Congress have takon n very wide mnge and have discussed in an able, Intelligent, interesting and exhaustive manner a great variety of subjects embracing legslative. judicial, execu tive and political. It scorns to be tim rulo in general debate upon a bill lor thc Member addressing the House to upenli about anything and every thing except the HUbject-innttor of tho ponding measure, and I will not nt this time make an exception to the rule, but will take advantage of thc *irne alloted ino to address tho House upon two subjects contained in sep arate bills which 1 have introduced nt this session of Congress. To my mind these are very important mut ters, ami I trust that the Members of this House will give me their at tention and these measures that due nnil careful consid?r?t ion which limy deserve. Thc Hist of these to witch 1 ask your attention is H. R. 1 (V7f?, which provides. "That no judge of any court of the United Status inferior to the Supt? nie C? art shall issue any ?writ of injunction or prohibition in any case wherein the validity of a law of un;. State of tho United States, or the net of any ofllcor ol' any such ?State done j or required to bo done, in pursuance of such law, is called in question." In view of tho recent acts of Federal judges, fresh in the minds of the poop!?', assuming powers never delegated to them, this question be come of great interest ?ind import ance. Such an assumption bf power by tho judges of tho United States courts cnn not be too severely crit icised and condemned, lt is calcu ? . .: v ^? tuc oatie or ot ino supreme Jourt of the United States. Since the. expiration of IhejFlfty lintb Congress thc people of the Ulilt d States have witnessed many things ending to demonstrate the correct .ess of Jefferson's solomn declaration ;.?ut Federal judges aro the "sappers and minors" of despotism. Wo have ?eon Federal judges attempting to nullify the laws of a State by grant ing injunctions forbidding and re straining the officers of tho,Stales, of Virginia. North Carolina, Ala bama, and Minnesota^ who aro charged with the execution of th? laws of those States, to execute those laws, unless and until tho Supremo Court of tho United States has pass ed upon their validity, thus making State Haws enforcible only upon a condition never contemplated by tho framers of the ('oust it ut ion of the United States, And we lia ve si en this new usurpation of authority followed immediately upon the sugesti?n of tho President, who appointed the par ticular judges guilty of such usurpa tion, that tho Constitution needed to o remodeled by executive, legislative, and judicial constructions, ami nhl b y amendments in tho proper and authorized manner, In order to adapt jt, lo the needs of the times. In this way, Ky the a upolu! men I to judge ships ol im a Who ate over/'abu.s lo please their benefactor, the Pres ident is seeking and securing what amounts to a veto upon all State l?g islation, absolutely destroying the sovereignty of tho State by indirec tion. While thc State:) are bting shown of all initiative i ri the matter of leg islation for the protection of their Citizens against the. oppressions and ahuses of corporations, through the instrumentality of tim former attor neys of those same corporations whom Hie President has transform ed into judges, tho initiative (d' the Federal Government, or, rather, of the President of the United Slates, lias been correspondingly increased hy means of commissions of all kinds, exercising legislative, executive, and judicial powers ml St ? nee. As the gen tl om uh from Massachusetts (.Mr. McCaljj said in a speech at the Jumes town (exposition on Constitution (lay: We are not all to he regarded in our bllSili?SS and modes ol' life by gentlemen sent out from Washington and the gentlemen sent out from Washington are to be regulated hy one man in the White House. Would il bo possible to conceive of a more ideal centralized paternalistic gov ernment? Tn? judges tire not removable by tho President, but these commission ers are; HO that, In effoct, wo have a now Romi-judiciary system, by moans of which tho President may put in train whatever measures he may Uko through instruments dependent upon himself for their ofllces und emolu ments; and besides this, a perverted judicial systoui by monas of which he may nullify all measures adopted by tho States which do not please bim. Oar condition In these respects ls worse to-day than it. was in 1798, when Jefferson and Madison aroused tho nation with the Kentucky ami Virginia resolutions. Federalism, or nationalism, as it is now called, had then run wild, indeed, under John Adams; but not so wild as it bas run under Th?odore Roosevelt. Many useless oillcos had boon created as moans of propagating the faith and perpetuating the power of tim Fed eralist party; but thc number was insignificant, and the ?moluments still more Insignificant, when compar ec? with tho 3tl,OOO now ollices and $36,000,000 in salaries created hy tho Fifty-eighth and Fifty-ninth Con gresses. Tho allen and sedition laws had been passed hy Congress under the whip and spur of tho Adminis tration in violation of the Constitu tion; but those were as nothing com pared with the tariff bills, the sub sidy bill, tho financial hills, end other measures Intended to benefit special interests at tho expense of tho publie, which have passed this House in re cont years. Nor were tho direct usur pations of undolegated powers, com mitted by Adams to be compared with those w.hich tho present President bas committed. I have not the time to go into tho details of all these matters; but. in respect to tho Juriciary system, ?is it. was treated hy tho Sixth Congress under Adams and tho Seventh under Jefferson, I wish to speak ?it length, in order to show thal Congress has complete authority to destroy, as well as to create, courts inferior to Hu* Supreme Court, and therefore lo abol ish judicial offices and lo deprive (hose persons who hold them of their salaries. Allot* Jefferson had been elected In 1800, and before ho had taken his seat. In 1S?M, President Adams con ceived the design of perpetuating his "policies" all enemies of tho Con stitution hu V? "policies" by creat ing new Federal courts and Piling them with judges who totlld ho de pended on to nullify any law passed hy the new Congress or by any Slate legislature, which might conflict with his monorc.hial policies; iii his fourth annual message, November 22, 1.800, be said: , lt is in ovory point of view of such primary Importance to carry the laws into prompt and faithful exe cution, and to render that part of il!?, o,l,v,?.?Cr4,..,*l-.- . won:? ii complacent reply, he added on the 27th of November tho .fol lowing: T thank yon, gentlemen, for your assurance thal the various subjects recommended t<> your consideration shall receive your deliberate atten tion. The President was greatly inter ested in the improvement," of the judiciary system. Ho contended that after courts had once been created and judges appointed these courts could not 1)0 abolished or those judges removed by Congress. In pursuance Of this theory, thc Sixth Congress, tho last Peel ora i isl Congress, with its expiring gasp, passed "Au act for tho more conven ient organization ot the courts <>f tho United States," win h whs ap proved by President Adams. Febru ary 13. I SOI less than a month be fore Jefferson was inaugurated. This act created certain new courts, called "circuit courts of tho United State." Ju virtue ol' appointments made hy President Adams in pursu ance of this act, William Tilghtnnii, Oliver Wolcott, Richard Hassett. Charles Magill, Samuel Hitchcock, Benjamin Ito II ruo. Kg ber I I le ritson, Philip H. Key, William Orifllth, Jere miali Smith, and George K. Taylor became judges of said circuit courts, vviil) Sillat i< !. of $.2, oie a year oneil. These judges wore known as "John Adam's judges," and wore extremely objectionable to tin Democrats, then called Republicans, of whom Jeffer son was tho leader. In order to get rid of Hiern, Jefferson, in his hist, an nual message. December S, 1801, suggested tho repeal of the ad. His remarks will be found in volume i of Richardson's Presidents* Messag es, p. 331 : Tho judiciary system of Hu United Slates . Sahl he. a.'d especially that portion of it re cently enacted, w ill of course present Itself to the contemplation of Con gross; and, thai they may be able to judge of. the proportion which the Institution bears to the business it has to perform. I have caused to hq procured from tho several States, and now lay before. Congress, an exact statement of all tho causes decided since the Ursi establishment of the courts, and of those which were de pending when additional courts were brought in to their aid. And while on Ibo judiciary organ ization, it win be worth your con sideration whethor the protcclon of tho inestimable institution of Juries has boon extended to all cases involv ing the security of our persons and j property. Their impartial selection also hoing essential to their value, I we ouch' further to eonsdor whoth- ' or that in Hutllclontly secured in those States where they aro taine marshal depondluj tt r?'tlY? will, or designator or by officers, doper > 'Hi lu tho first plue showed that these wero unnecessary Thal was of Itself to them. Hut in ho raised ? far m< Hon by roforonco tc i institution of Jurie voivJng the socurit.. ~. ;. um property, lie foresaw, oven then, that those Federal courts would, in tho very nature of things, resort to the government hy injunction-to tho decision of cases without the in tervention of a jury. Tho Pritchards and Joneses of to-day were not hid den from his prophetic, vsion. Nor wore tho abuses of the jury system, even when trial hy jury was not dis pensed with, overlooked by him. Ile abhorred tho iden that a Federal judge should without n jury try any CUSO whatever involving personal or property rights. The legislature of North Carolina, on the 17th of December, 1801, in structed tho Senators .and requested tho Representatives from that State to urge tho repeal of (he act of Feb ruary 13, 1801. And immediately afterwards a hill to that effect was introduced in thc Senate." li was entitled "A hill to repeal certain ails of Congress respecting tho organiza tion of 'he courts of tito United States, and for other purposes." When it reached Ibo House it, was referred lo the Committee of the Whole House and was debated ut great length. Thc discussion of its constitutionality was opened by Hon dersotl and Williams ol' North Caro lina, on the Otb of february, 1802. (See Annals of Congress for thai day.) Hender.mi i pened lin' debate. Ho deprecated the fad thai the leg islature of North Carolina had st rinded tho Senators and requested the Representatives of that State in Congress to vote for the repeal of the act of 1 SO I . He then made sov oral points against the constitution ality of the repealing bill, ali ol' which were taken up by Williams s?riai un ano uni v answered. 1 grot that 1 can not conveniently in sert this great speech in my remarks on this occasion. Those who wish lo examine ii will lind il reported in thc Annals ol' Congress for February 10, ism', ai pages 530-533. I would also call attention lo (he remarks of Philip R. Thompson, of Virginia, made in reply to Henderson on the following day (tb., p. a47). 'There were great debates in both Houses ot Congress on this bill re pea liner t b*? pet of 1 SO1 <..--'?? . ..0v.> pie.-n.-ut.eu petitions in which I hey said: Thai, by an act ol' Congress, pass ed on tim I3th day of February, I sui, entitled "An act for the morel convenient organization of the Courts of the United States." certain judi cial offices were created, and courts established, called circuit courts of the United states, ibo petitioners be came vested wiih Hie ofllCOS so creat ed, and received commissions, au thorizing them to hold the same, with the emoluments thereunto ap pertaining during their good behav ior, thai, during the last Session, an act of Congress passed, by which the above-mentioned law was declared to be repealed, since which no law Ino. been made for assigning to the petitioners the ex?cution of any ju dicial function, nor has any provis ion been made for the puyihcnt of Hu ir stipulated compensations; thal nuder Hi OSO circumstances, and find ing it expressly declared in the Con stitution of the United Stales that "Hie judges both ol' Ibo Supreme ?ind inferior courts shall hold their Olfi COS during good behavior, ami shall, al stated Hines, receive for their ser vice.- a compensation, which shall not lu- diminished during their contin uance in olllce," the petitioners are compelled to represent it as their opinion, that Ibo rights seemed lo i he- i lo Ibo Ciinsi ll uti.ni, ip' mem bers of th" judicial department, huvo been impaired; thal. "With this sin cero conviction and IhllUCUCed by a sense ol' public duty, they most re spectfully request of Congres:; to re view the existing law. which re spect the oflieos in question, and to define tho duties to he prfdrmcd by the pt lt loners, by such provision as shall be consistent viih th.' Consti tution and thc Convenient adminis tration of justice;" thal. "Hu1 righi ol' Hu- petitioners to ?heir compensa tions, they sincerely he) leve lo be secured by the Constitution, notwith standing and modification ol the ju dicial department, which, in the opin ion of Congress, public convenience may recommend; ibis right, iiowovcr, involving a personal Interest., will cheerfully be submitted to judicial examination ?iud decision in such manner as the wisdom and Impartial ity ol' ('(ingress may prescribe; that judges should not ho deprived ot their offices or compensations, with out misbehavior, appears to the pe titioners, to be among the Tust and and host established principles of the American Constitution; ami, in the various reforms they 'have Un dergone, it has been preserved and guarded with increased nolicitudo; that, on Ibis basis, the Constitution of tho United States has laid tho foundation of the judicial dOpart mont, and expressed Its moaning In terms equally plain and peremp tory;" that, "thia hoing the dolib eruto and solemn opinion of tho pe titioners, tho duty of their stations requires that they should express lt to tho leglslatlvs body. They regret tho necessity which compels them to make the representation; and they confide that it v in ho attributed to a e.ynvtcttoii that they ought not, j voluntarily, to surrender rights and authorities intrusted to their pro tection, not for their personal ad vantage, but for the benefit of the community." This nuttier was debated in Com mittee of the Whole House on the same day, and the House again decid ed thal Congress had the right to deprive the Judges of all judicial powers; and also thal t had the right to deprive them of their Balarles whereover the O fit CO was disestab lished. In other words, the House, by tl vole of di yeas lo :?7 nays, adopted II resolution declaring: Thal the prayer of the petitions of William Tiglmnu, Oliver Wolcott, Richard Hassett, Charles Magill. Samuel Hitchcock, Benjamin Bourne, Egbert Henson. Phillp H. Key, Wil liam Cl ri 111 i h. .lerem ia h Smith, and George H. Taylor ought not to ht; granted, and the I he petitioners have leave tn wthdraw their peti tions. (Annals. Seventh Congress, se cond session. P. 44(1.) An on I Ito same day (P. 4 oil) the House l>.\ a vole ol 57 noes to '.'.?> ayes rejected a resolution declaring: Thal provision ought to he made hy law for submitting to judicial decision ibo righi (d' (Ihr- same per lions, naming them) bile judges ol' the circuit courts appointed under a II act eui ii led : "Atl ail for tho more convenient organization of tho courts ol' thc Pulled Slates, passed on the i.'.th day ol Kel,, miry. I sui. which said act was repealed at the last session of Congress, to their compensa i ion.'' Now. in view of his history. 1 dc sre to call attention io a publication ol' ibo Depart melli of .lust ice, issued during ih<' present year, ami entitled "A list of United Stales .Midges, At torneys, ami Mhrshn'.v." This docu ment shows thal since his accession to office in I?HH President Roosevelt has appointed f ederal judges as ki lo w's : Supreme Court of the I'niled Stans, three associate judges one third of the membership of that great tribunal. Circuit cousis of (ho United States, twelve tu' the twenty-nine judges, or 4 1.7 per cent. District courts of Hie United Slates, forty-two of the eighty order to meet the exigencies ol' those corporations which contribute most liberally lo thc corruption fund ol' Hie Republican party, And before his present term expir es the Presiden) will probably lune the opportunity of packing tho courts willi enough no n of the same class hi insure the perpetuation of his socallcd "policies," by judicial action. Unless we ac t as our predecessors did in I SOL', and deprive some of these useless and time-serving judges of some or all of their judicial powers. Disregarding thc fact thal before March 1, I OOO, there ls a probabil ity ol' our having seven Roosevelt ?e.dges on ibo Supreme Court hench, we may by thal time have in office fm the seventeen ol' the twenty-nine circuit court judges and forty-seven of the eight \ district COIIl l jlttlgUS. If Mr Roosevelt should be reelected, ns man) of our Republican friends anticipate, we should probably have on the hench by 1013, as Roosevelt appointees, twenty of the twenty-nine Circuit coin! judges and (ifty-niuc of the eighty district court judges, if this should happen the hands of ('(ingress and of ?very State legisla ture would surely be lied hard and fast hy .judicial usurpation. Will the people Of Hie UlliOll submit lo this? Will we, as the representatives of Mw ueOiiif. of fhn Slates, submit to lt? I think noi. 1 know that it ought not to be submitted to We have Hie powei to abolish (hese in ferior Federal courts. Cujus est in lit I ttiere ejus esl abrogare. Shall we bo dominated, abused, insulted, rack id, and mined hy our creatures, or Shall we pul an end lo their inso lence and their usurpations by fol lowing the precedent established in 1802? In principle it is mir right to abolish these 'nfer/or courts. As to the question of expediency, lt lies wholly within our legislative discretion t<> continue them under proper restrictions of Jurisdiction ?uni powers, or to continue thom and provide a different system, to he ad ministered by new appointees, whose antecedents prove that they respect the "inestimable inst it ut ion of juries" and are not disposed to exercise usurped power in order to nullify the laws of the states and the constitu tional rights of citizens hy means ol' writs of injunction or prohibition or hy punishments inflicted for con structive contempts of court. To (lils end I favor the complete reo r gan I zil lion of the Federal judiciary, and shall, in all probability, introduce a hill for that purpose, unless (he evils of tho present system can bo rem edied by milder moans. The other hill I have reference to is to H. H. 10062, which amenda the act of 18K7 as to removal of causes from tho Slat? courts to thc United Staten courte and fixes tho sum or valuo involved in any suit of which tho circuit courts of tho United States havo original cognisance, concurrent with (ho courts of the several States, at $20,000 instead of $2,000 as now provided by said act. This?, too, is ii mutter of great im portance to the citizens of this coun try. Under the law us it is at pres ent, if suit between a citizen of South Carolina and a citizen of another State or a foreign corporation invol ves I he sum or value ot' $2,000 or moro tho d?fendent may remove the same to Hie circuit court of the Unit ed States. This law appears upon its face to he unfair, unjust, and discriminating in favor of the citizen of another State or a foreign corporation and against the citizen of thc Stute in which Hu- suit was brought, In (hat it gives to the citizen of another State, and to the foreign corporation, the choice of one or two tribunals in A'll ich to try his case, whereas the citizen who sues another eiiizon of his ( wu Stale has no choice but to sue in the courts ol' his own State Those removals cause great complaint and dissatisfaction, especially at this time when foreign corporations are so numerous, doing business as com mon carriers, express, t?l?phone, and telegraph companies, being incorpor ated in one State and doing business in a dozen or moro Slates, lt works a hardship, especially upon tho cit izen in moderate circumstances, and often results in a denial of justice to the poor man, (he widow, and the or phan, who have not the means to conduct and carry on a lawsuit with a foreign corporation in (he United Stales circuit ctourts. It may be and often is many miles distant from the home of the plaintiff, owing lo the very few courts established in any on?' State. Ii is against the pol icy and principles of our Government and of all civilized nations to place Hie machinery of (he courts of jus tice beyond the reach of the poorest and humblest citizen who seeks re dress for a wrong or remedy for nn existing evil. (.Applause.) The act of 1S?G fixed tho right of the foreign corporation to remove the cause when the amount involved in the suit was $500 or more. This act was amended in J 8S V and the amount of $2.non fixed as tho limit. Twenty years have elapsed since this amendment and it lias boon twenty years of such progress and prosperity as wore never known or experienced by any nation or gov ernment in (he history of (he world. We have advanced in wealth and niaterial prosperity by leaps and hounds unknown to any nation or limit of removals from $000 (o $2, 000, would il not relied greater wis dom and more justice and equity to raise the limit of removal in this year A. H. I I?US to the sum or value of $20,000? In justice, equity, and good conscience I say that il should be done at once (Applause.) Hoi further good and sufficient reasons why this hill should become a law 1 will state what you all know, what has been shown in the exper ience of every practicing lawyer in (his country, that the Federal courts are held by the people of the coun try in more awe than Hie State (omis; they are not looked upon wit li favor or regarded with the .'.ame degree ol confab ncc as State CpUrfS; they are far removed from the people and frequently are presid ed over by iudgoi appointed by tho Presiden I ?rom other and distant States from ?hal in which they pre side; they are personally unknown to the people, and 1 regret lo say that the knowledge ol' information th.' people havo gathered concerning sonic ol' these judges is not rassuring and not calculated lo inspiro confi dence, respect or esteem. (Applause.) ? The people value more highly than any other tte- right ol trial by jury. That right is often ruthlessly swept aside by a federal judge in ellinging i buy upon Hi" facts <>r in Instruct ing .i verdict. for these and many Other reasons (he people and lit igants generally throughout the rural districts ase restless and dissatisfied Under the present judicial system of the United State:; to look upon (he Federal courts, nfl now established, as foreign tribunals, whose presiding officers ate not in touch or sympa thy with Hie masses of the people and who nltogothor ignorant ol' Hie character, habits, and customs o; tue people over whom they wield juoicial authority after the manner of n ty rant, of (he sixteenth century; under (his system equity, justice, and mer cy are oftentimes' most conspicuous by their absence. (Applause on (he Democratic side.) Longest and Shortest Days. At London and Diemen Hie long es! day has sixteen and one-hall hours. At Stockholm it is eighteen and one-half hours in length. At Hamburg and Dantzlg (he longest day has seventeen hours. At St. Petersburg and Tobolsk, Siberia, the longest day is nineteen hours and the Shortest five hours. At Tornea, Fin land, Juno 21 brings a day noarly 22 hours long and Dec. 2 5 one less than three hours In length. At Wurdbury, Norway, the longest day lusts from May 21 to July 22 without Interrup tion and in Spitzborgon tho longost day is throe and one-half months. TESTIMONY GIVER OUT. Suppressed Dispensary Mutter Made Public hy Clinrninn Murray. Chairman \V. J. Murray, of tho dispensary commission Wednesday made public the testimony taken io regard to tn? exnonsc and' per diem accounts of Mr. H. P. Arthur, ono of tho members of the commission who was appointed receiver by Judge Prit chard. This testimony was taken in October and was transmitted to Qov ernor Ansel but the governor has taken no acton and all nforination in regard to the matter has been with held from the press. Mr. Arthur has not since attended . a meeting of the commission. In tact, W all inquiries were met with the an swer that there "is nothing lu lt." The investigation of Mr. Arthur was caused by a report to the com mission by its attorney, Mr. W. F. Stevenson, in which he said. "Voucher No. 211, the Hon. B. P. Arthur, for March, shows 13 days'dtljl service in March, $6fi. The recordVo* shows thal he attended meetings ot the board on March 12 and 13, and he doubtless came down to sig? checks which could not have taken more than two days, which would leave nine days to be accounted for, (which I don't understand, and if al lowed to stand as it will subject the board to grave criticism, and con structive per diem cannot be allowed It contains items of mileage to Rich mond which should he explained fully in tho v?cher or mileage could not be charged from Kchmond to meet the board here. "His account for April is for eight days, and tho record shows only one day at ;i meeting, and If wo allow one day to go and come and one trip lor signing checks, allowing two days, making four possible days for the month and I cannot approve the voucher as it stands." lt seems thal whenever Mr. Arthur came from Union to Columbia to sign checks lie charged up three days, although he was not engaged moro than fifteen minutes In signing the checks. On one occaison he charged mileage from Richmond, Va. MILLS SHI TTING DOWN. Thousands of Operatives Are Affect" ed by the Curtailment. Thousands of employees ol- New longland Mills and factories went O? a short time basis following several months of dooresslon. In some places reporta come or several factories re suming work arter tho shut down or increasing their- running " . ? v-..!.!.. i ' .. '<< ri?.>;". M.twaufoip) . lin ?'. p? i ? * cotton milis; a'C ri ., .. .cn ouu hands,, wont on a schedule of four days a week. Cotton mills In several towns own- > ed by H. B. and R. Knight, and em ploying six thousand operatives, wont on a three quarters time schedule. The Putnam Manufacturing Com pany's mills went on three and a half time schedule and the Nightingale and Powhattan mills, of Putnam, Conn., have reduced to four days a week, affecting 7 00 hands. The ICdwards cotton mills, at Au gusta, Maine, employing 1,000 hands, adopted a half schedule, and the Whit in machine shops, at W hi tin ville, Mass., making colton mill ma chinery, with 1,800 men, reduced time to forty-five hours a week. Curtailment of production is also approved by the Chlcopee cotton mills, ol' Chlcopee Palls, 1,300 hands? Mic Dwight mills, ol' Chicopee, 500 operatives, Salmon Falls mills, Sal mon Falls, NT. H., 7 00 operatives, Naumbeng cotton mihs, of Salem, l,r<00 hands, and other concerns. Had Boon Paid. Walter L. Freeman, colored, was up before United States Commission er Hobt Dide last Tuesday on a very serious cha rue. Freeman was form erly a student at the State Colored College and is charged with unlaw fully attempting io collect a money order by forging the endorsement of the rightful payee, Isabella Oauthen, at present a student at the State College. It seems that tho order was sent ?o (he Cauthen girl, who never received it, but had a duplicate issued instead, which was paid by the Orangeburg postofTlce. Tn some manner the orig inal order fell into (he hands of Free man, who was (caching school in Adaboll, Ca. Freeman endorsed (he order by signing (he girl's name and forwarding lt to John Shell, a friend of his who lives lu RoWOSVille, In structing him to come to Orangoburg and collect the amount, five dollars, and remit the proceeds lo Freeman by express money order. When the order was presented at (his office it was discovered that pay aient had already been mach? of tho duplicate, whereupon Shell was ques tioned with the result that Informa tion leading to the arrest of Free man was secured. PoslofiiCO In spector S. W. Kingsmere was put. In charge of the case and lt was not long bo foro he had Freeman, who will have to stand trial in the Federal Court, in default of bail Freeman was lodged In Jail to await trial. Tho Government was represented by Assistant District. Attorney A. Lath rop and tho defence by President Tho?. B, Miller, of tho State Colored College-Orangoburg Times and Dom ocrat.