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.

Cosolidated Aug. 2,1881 SUMTER. S. G.. WEDNESDAY. OCTOBER 14, 1903. Sew Series-Vol. XXIII. So. ll Eubllsfc?d Sro? 7e&&esdayy JNT. <3r. Osteen) SUMTER, 8. C. TEP.3?S : $1 50 per ac s am-io advance. ? ? Y S B T I 8 I M I 8 ? : Oae Square first insertion.,.".$1 CO Svery subsequent insertion........ ......... 50 Coa tracts for three months, pr longer will oe made st reduced rates. All common.'.cations which subserve private Interests will be charged for as ad vertiements. Obituaries and tributes of respects will be 'barged for. . TRIAL Of JAS. H. ULIMAN. Wednesday's Proceedings in ie Court ai lexington. Tisticraay of B?chel!, Flowers, fogies, Sheshire, and Other Wit? nesses for tie Defence. SBMM?BIZEi BY JOIN MARSBALL Witnesses Make Statements Which, if Proved, Might Justify the Jury in Believing That Mr. Tillman Had Reason to Believe Thai Hr. Soczafes Had Made Threats Against Hin. Lexington, S. C., Oct. 7.-James EE. Tillman is sow being heard in his own defence. Through his attorneys, his friends, his deeds, his words, his .conduct, ne stands forward to say now and why he killed N. G. Gon? zales. The State has sought to break down that assumption of innocence legally accorded to every prisoner who comes to the bar of justice ; it is now his part not only to reassert it, bot to make it good in fact In his own behalf he is to be heard in explana? tion, in extenuation, in justification. It is admitted that he performed ah act that per se is forbidden by the law, but which, in certain circum? stances, does not merit or receive pun? ishment other than it itself provides. He is to show, if he may, that he is entitled to the immunity granted to the exception ; that he did what his neighbor might have done had he been circumstanced as he was ; that he but exercised the right every man does and should possess to preserve himself againts aggression, injury and serious hurt; that, in fact, while he appa? rently transgressed a statute he is en? titled to vindication in the name of the higfeest, the universal, the human law. To this task his attorneys ad? dressed themselves today. Bather contrary to general expecta . tions Juror Sharpe responded to the clerks-' accustomed morning poll. He looked somewhat weak and peaked in consquence of his recent attack, but he Professed bis readiness to resume his sties, J&dge Gary spoke to him in sympathy and encouragement, and as? sured him that should his indisposi? tion again become acute he must im? mediately inform the Court. Then the usual routine of affairs was resumed. Solicitor Thurmond announced that the State rested, and the defence at once began to introduce its testimony. It had scarcely taken a step, however, before its progress was stayed for an instant by an untoward circumstance. I suggested last week that a certain unexpressed ^antagonism was apparent in the manner of Messrs. Nelson and Bellinger, which would, I thought, breed interest, if not excitement, be? fore che ease was concluded. That prophecy was verified today. The passage at arms between them was of short duration and was finally adjusted amicably, but, while it lasted, it pos? sessed the vigor and reality of combat. It came about in this wise : The de? fence introduced certain additional ed? itorials printed in the State newspa? per. In. one of them the names of James H. Tiiteo&n and B. R. Tillman were coupled in condemnation. For various legal reasons the prosecution denied the admissibility of the evi? dence. The defence was equally em? phatic and insistent. In the sharp debate before the Court which ensued Mr. Bellinger more than implied that politics was being played for what it was worth in the name of evidence. The suggetison was no sooner made than it was resented. Mr. Nelson re? quested the stenographer to read the language of his learned friend, and when this had been done he proceeded to declare the charge, as he under? stood it, false. Mr. Bellinger dis? claimed intention to give offence in the manner in which it had been tak? en, but be reiterated his original words, adding that he would repeat them outside the Court House were it desired that he should do so. Later in the day Mr. Nelson said he had been informed by his friends, and he himself felt, that he had been too has? ty and too emphatic. He consequently wished to remedy whatever wrong he had done. And so the incident ended, but while it lasted tbe tension in the Court room was keenly drawn. Beth of the prin? cipals to the controversy had superb control of themselves,. At no time were their voices raised above conver? sational pitch, but a red flag is no more a danger signal than was the tone they employed. There was the glint of steel in the too quiet courtesy of their words, manner and conduct. But in a Court House no less than else? where all's well that ends well. In the evidence today the attorneys of Mr. Tillman developed at least two lines of their defence for him. They started upon a third, but early adjourn? ment prevented its complete develop? ment. At the outset additional em? phasis was given to the orignal provo? cation for the deed of the accused. The great mass of condemnatory edito? rials written by Mr. Gonzales regard? ing him is alraedy in evidence. These utterance? had been made a part of the case of the defense no less than a part of the case of the prosecution. The additions made to them today seemed to be inspired by a two-fold purpose. The suggestion that James H. Tillman and B. E. Tillman were linked togeth? er in reprehension by Mr. Gonzales was one inference put toward, and the other was that the younger Tillman drew his political strength from tbe ranks of the gamblers, blind tigers and the factory vote. The import of such testimony may be inferred when the avocations of the jurors before whom the case is being tried is remembered. But the reading of the editorials did not consume much time, and was an incident rather than a feature of the proceedings. The burden of the labor to which the defence devoted itself was the in? troduction of witnesses to prove that Mr. Gonzales made threats of personal violence against Mr. Tillman. It is understood that the normal order of procedure would have been the intro? duction of testimony to deny the threats said to have been made by Mr. Tillman himself, followed by the proof of threats made by Mr. Gonzales. But this sequence could not be observed by reason of the absence of certain witness? es. However, that is a detail of prac? tice rather than a matter for public consideration. As the event proved, the defence devoted itself to bringing foward men to prove that from various reasons. James H. Tillman was, or at least might have been, justified in ap? prehending thafN. G. Gonzales con? templated a personal attack upon him. A half dozen or so men were put on the stand to establish this conclusion. The testimony they gave all bore the same significance, and while the law? yers for the State attacked them vig? orously and at times showed discrep? ancies in their words and conduct, the sum total of impression at the end of the struggle leaned to the conclusion that, whether threats had been made or not, Mr. Tillman had been repeat? edly informed that they had been. The following purports to be na more than a general summary : Theo? dore D. Mitchell, formerly a detective for the Southern Railway, swore that he protested to Mr. Gonzales on a street car on one occasion against tbe editorial attacks made upon Mr. Till? man. He swore Mr. Gonzales said he conld slap Mr. Tillman's face and that he (Mr. Tillman) would not resent it, and that Mr. Gonzales further de? clared that "if ever he (Mr. Tillman) batted his eye at him he would fill him so full of lead he would never be able to tote it off." The witness said he subsequently told Mr. "Tillman of this conversation. In the cross-examination the State brought out the fact that that was pos? sibly the one and only conversation Mr. Mitchell had ever had with Mr. Gonzales ; that the langnage imputed to Mr. Gonzales was not such as ne might have been expected to use; that Mr. Mitchell shortly after the homicide, spoke to Mr. A. E. Gon? zales in reprehension of Mr. Tillman's act; that he made no mention of the conversation with Mr. N. G. Gonzales, save to Mr. Tillman and a certain Mr. Cotton, in Columbia, until many months after the tragedy. The second *' threat" witness for the defence was Mr. A. J. Flowers, a young man from Darlington, who was one time a street oar conductor in Co? lombia. He swore that in the summer of 1902 Mr. Gonzales and several other persons boarded a car on which he was working. During the trip that en? sued Mr. Flowers declared that he beard Mr. Gonzales say that if he did not succeed in defeating Jim Tillman that he (Tillman) would never be seated, as he (Gonzales^ would kill the rascal. In a letter from Mr. Flowers to Mr. Tillman this 'language was somewhat varied. Mr. Howers did not mention what he had heard to anyone tili comparatively recently. He was a soldier under Col. Tillman. The State attacked kim fiercely in cross-examination. Mr. P. W. Hughes, a fanner, who was originally from the Graniteville section, followed. He claimed to have known Mr. Gonzales slightly for years. He testified to a conversation in the street at Columbia with Mr. Gonzales in the presence of several other men. In response to protests against his editorial utterances against. Mr. Till? man, Mr. Gonzales declared, accord? ing to Mr. Hughes, that that blackleg gambler (Mr. Tillman) would get jus? tice after the election, even if it had to be administered with lead. Mr. Angus Blalock heard the Hughes-Gonzales conversation just re? ferred to, and he substantiated the former witness's account of it in es? sential details. Then came Mr. V. B. Cheshire, a printer, of Anderson, S. C. Mr. Che? shire swore to a conversation he had with a Mr. Geer, a travelling repre? sentative of the State newspaper. The admission of this testimony brought forth one of these long legal battles which frequently interrupt the active progress of the case. The defence won its point finally, however, and Mr. Cheshire told his story. It was to the effect that Mr. Geer had told him that Mr. Tillman had better not go after Mr. Gonzales with a stick, as the latter was carrying a gun for the former and he "would get hell shot out ot him." The two next witnesses who followed were Mr. H. S. Head, a mill operat? ive and saloonkeeper of Augusta, and Mr. H. B Sims. They swore to hav? ing heard Mr. Gonzales make an in? quiry regarding Mr. Tillman in Co? lombia on one occasion. The signifi? cance of their testimony was not en? tirely apparent, but it is presumed to have been intened to imply that Mr. Gonzales was keeping an eye on Mr. Tillman's movements whenever he was in the city. This is in substance the "threat" evidence of the defence. I understand other witnesses will be sworn later, but that this is the testimony along this prticular line upon which Mr. Tillman's attorneys count most. For the rest Major "Dick" < Ander? son was put np to rebut certain testi? mony given for the State by Mr. Ar? thur and Mr. James Davis was on the stand for the purpose of impeaching Editor Terrell when Court closed. The head of Mr. Davis was swathed in bandages, which led a facetious reporter to predict that, as a matter of course, be must be a resident of Edge field County. The event justified the judgment of the scribe. Court ad? journed before he could do so, but it is expected that Mr. Davis will swear that no such interview as the Terrell Black-Tillman interview took place. This is a synopsis of the day's events. When it is heard in rebuttal it is presumed that the State will seek to discredit one or more or even all of the defence's "threat" witnesses and their testimony. With that I may not now deal. The record as it stands has to be ac? cepted as it now is, and while no evi? dence given today stands out with the distinctness or possesses the convinc? ing quality of the testimony given along the same line for the prosecution by Dr. Adams, it is scarcely to be de-1 nied that, in the aggregate, it must be accorded a certain weight. In a word, while no single witness that was on the stand was of a person? ality calculated to establish the con? tention of the defence unless more is developed against them than was brought out by cross-examination, the jury would be justified in the conclu? sion that Mr. Tillman had reason to believe that Mr. Gonzales had made thre?ts against him. Just why Mr. Gonzales should have done so has not been made apparent on the stand. The provocation for the threats made against Mr. Gonzales by Mr. Tillman was all well understood ; it was, in fact, a part of the State's "threat" testimony. Mr. Terrell and Dr. Adams both brought this out. The witnesses who were on the stand today, however, advanced no theory or reason to explain why Mr. Gon? zales, as they alleged, bad threatened repeatedly to take the life of Mr. Till mn. Possibly the defence may later seek to suppl; this missing link in the con? tinuity of the line of thought it would suggest to the jury and to the people. -John Marshall in News and Courier. Lexington, Oct 8.-A moment of keenest possible human interest came in the Lexington Court House this af? ternoon. . The warring attorneys, who had been peculiarly aggressive and militant during the day, had rested upon their arms during a brief but grateful recess which the Court had ordered. The nerves of the spectators had been strained to the snapping point, while witnesses essential to the very life, of the defence were subjected to a hurtling fire of cross-questions by Mr. Bellinger. In hot resentment of the attacks made upon them moie than one of these men had thteatened their sharp-tonuged, nimble-brained pursuer with personal violence. The long hours of the most strenu? ous day the trial has yet brought forth had nearly run her course; Col. Craw? ford, in his most. F?ave and courtly manner, had just succeeded in convert? ing a witness for the defence into at least a partial ally for the State ; the jury had retired to its Toom and filed back again; spectators laughed and reporters lolled, thinking that so much had been done, surely the one remain? ing hour of the session would bring forth nothing of excitfmg consequence. JAMES H. TILLMAN ON THE STAND. But, ;as usual, it was the unexpected that happened. In a tone as quiet as that in which he might have addressed John Smith or Thomas Jones, Col. Croft rose and requested James H. Tillman to take the witness stand. Had he touched the key to an electric circuit to which was attached every chair and bench in the Court room he could not have achieved more instan? taneous results. The nerves, and brain of every man in sound or sight sprung to attention. One of the climaxes of the great trial-drama had arrived and the audience accorded it the beat of pulse and the quickening of breath which its significance merited. The prisoner at the bar rose slowly to his great 'height, a little darker glow com? ing to his face, a little more set ex? pression coming to his rugged features, a little less listlessness in carriage and conduct than have marked his mien at other times. Striding forward de? liberately to the clerk's desk lie took the oath and ascended the stand. Once seated he composed himself in face and figure an awaited Col. Crofts' ques? tions as calmly as though he were about to decide some knotty point in parliamentary law rather than to seek to justify the tragedy that has chal? lenged his liberty or his life. In itself the testimony that he gave in the single hour that remained of the session was of comparative insig? nificance. Under the queried guidance of Col. Croft he began to tell the Court and the jury of his relations with N. G. Gonzales, the man he slew. The recital began at a period which antedated the tragedy by a decade or more, and when the adjournment to, the day's session came it had not yet reached the period which is largest i with importance to himself and to those, here and elsewhere, to whom he speaks. The examination was con ? fined to the giving of his version of j various incidents in which he and Mr. I Gonzales figured, and which have been I referred to in the editorial or other ! testimony which has been placed upon j the record here within the last few ; days. What he said is given in ample j length elsewhere, and I need consider it no more specifically at this time than to indicate its general tenor. The witness declared that the antag? onism between Mr. Gonzales and him? self grew out of his defence of his uncle, and had been accentuated in various ways during ten years. He declared that Mr. Gonzales had pur? sued him with relentless ardor in his newspaper from the time of. his earli? est manhood, and that no opportunity had been neglected of treating him, as he held, unjustly, harshly and with great bitterness. . He was engaged in amplifying this construction of the conduct of the dead man when the day ended. The crucial moments of the ordeal that is his will come tomorrow, when he must describe every detail of that fateful day in Columbia, and hav? ing done so with the sympathetic as? sistance of his own attorneys must do so all over again in response to the searching, cynical, condemning ques? tions of the State. Whatever may be his innocence or guilt, whatever ap? praisement he may put upon himself and his deed, he must not lose cour? age over night. He needs to marshal his will, whatever nerve and fortitude and force he may command, for they ?will be in requisition ere he may rest again. In the presence of this final incident the other proceedings of the day are dwarfed Unduly. Barring the compari? son by which they suffer they were in? teresting and exciting to a degree. The defence was marshalling its most relied upon forces, and they were be? ing attacked with unexampled vigor by the State. Scarcely a witness as? cended the stand (and there were many of them) who did not contribute his full quota to the general result. It was, indeed, the field day of the trial in many regards and columns would be required in which to stisfactorily ana? lyze the full significance of what was said by this one and done by the other. It is impsosible in the time and space that are at hand to completely repro? duce its impressions. I give here but the merest snmmary of the several parts assigned to its witnesses by the defence. . The session began with Mr. James Davis, a quarryman from Edgefield, on the stand. As I predicted yesterday, he contradicted the testimony given by Messrs. Terrell and Black concern? ing threats made against Mr. Gonzales in their presence on a train. The cross-examination showed that he knew neither Black nor Terrell by sight, and left the value of his evi? dence dependent upon the circum? stance that he claimed to have been present during the entire period in which they alleged they saw and spoke with Mr. Tillman. The second witness was a well enough known figure in South Carolina. Mr. Cole L. Blease severed his legal con? nection with the defence before he as? cended the stand to testify. He was a candidate for Lieutenant Governor last year and has otherwise been more or less prominent in South Carolina politics. In personal appearance Mr. Blease is not unilke the gentlemen whom modern dramatists sometimes introduce in their plays as typical Southerners. He is slim, erect, de bonnair, swarthy in coloring, regular of feature, quick of speech and action. On the stand he was entirely self-pos? sessed and answered the many ques? tions put to him precisely or graphi? cally, as the case required. He de? clared himself to be a personal friend of Mr. Tillman and he contributed materially to a clear understanding of more than one contention that is made by the defence. The cross-examina? tion of Mr. Blease, which WAS con? ducted by Mr. Bellinger, was not ex? tended, nor was it productive of more than an elaboration of matters that had been deduced by the examination in chief. The cardinal features of t?ie testi? mony of Mr. Blease I conceive to be the new light in which he placed threats testified to by Or. Adams and his assurance that he knew of his own personal knowledge tbat Mr. Tillman had sot been accustomed to carry a p^t-oi during his campaign for the Governorship. Mr. Blease then inti? mated that the pistol that Dr. Adams saw in the satchel of Mr. Tillman be? longed to him and not to Mr. Tillman, and his explanation of the threats Dr. Adams testified to made them ut? tered in the way of self-defence and i not in a spirit of aggression. Mr. j i Blease said that Mr. Tillman was not ; armed at the time of the DeC?inp in- i cident at Gaffney, and that as he was usually his room mate he was able to swear that he did not habitually carry a pistol during the campaign, either on his person or in his baggage. He also said that though Mr. Tillman was advised by many of his friends to go to Columbia and "have it out" with Mr. Gonzales the defendant always re? plied that he did not wish to have a difficulty with Mr. Gonzales if he could avoid it. When Mr. Blease had concluded, Mr. George W. Lybrand, an Edgefield blacksmith, and R. F. Sox were put forward to discredit the testimony given for the State by Mr. Allen. These gentlemen swore that, standing very much as Mr. Allen described himself as standing, they could not have seen what Mr. Allen declared he saw. Then State Senator J. T. Douglass, of Union, told of seeing Mr. Gonzales at the State House the day before the shooting, but the mission of his evi? dence was suggestive rather than spe? cific. His successor on the stand was Mrs. M. A. Evans, of Newberry. Mrs. Ev? ans is an elderly lady of strong feat? ures and pronounced individuality. She ietsified to passing up Main street in Columbia a few moments before the tragedy took place. She met Mr. Gon azles and was impressed with the look upon his face. She also noticed his hand in his pocket, and the impression made upon her was that he had some? thing in it. Other witnesses for the State and for thc defence have testified that about this time Mr. Gonzales's thumbs were protruding from his pockets, but Mrs. Evans is convinced to the contrary. She was so impressed by his look and manner, indeed, that she feared a tragedy impended. She spoke very rapidly and more than once made comments and remarks which brought forth objecions from Mr. Bel? langer, and which were scarcely with? in the precise legal limit that her testimony might have gone. The State did not cross-examine Mrs. Evans. Mr. Jesse Mahaffey followed. Mr. Mahaffey is a member of the Honse from Spartanburg. He is also a hu? morist. It seems that he saw the neck of a bottle in Mr. Tillman's pocket about the same time Mr. Lan catser, who swore for the State that he saw a pistol there. Mr. Mahaffey occasioned qutie a deal of laughter by his comments upon bottles and their contents, the one in Mr. Tillman's pocket being the one around which his wit played. Then Capt. J. A. White, an old Confederate soldier, who was door? keeper of a committee room in the State House, was sworn. Capt. White told of a man whom he was subsequently informed was Mr. Gon? zales, speaking to him at the Capitol. He came to the door v*here he sat, looked in and asked where was his "boss," meaning Mr. Tillman. The man subsequently said he had made Mr. Tillman show the white feather once and that he would do so again. Capt. White told Mr. Tillman of the incident, which he tstified took place the day before the tragedy. The next witness was Mr. R. H. Holsenbach, an Edgefield farmer Mr. Holsenbach was int?r?t sing in many ways. He was put forward in a dual capacity-to corroborate Capt. White and as an eye-witness for the defence. He testified that he cannot read nor write. His mission m Columbia was to get a position in the State House. He described the incident and the language sworn to by Capt. White. When Mr. Tillman and Senators Tal bird and Brown walked down from the Capitol the day Mr. Gonzales was kill? ed Mr. Holsenbach was behind j them. When he shooting took place, accord? ing to him, he and Mrs. Melton were standing almost side by side. He saw Mr. Gonzales plainly. Mr. Tillman had walked between Messrs. Brown and Talbird. When Mr. Gonzales cut across the pavement he thrust his hand into his pocket. These are, I think, the significant points in the evidence of Mr. Holsen? bach. The witness, his character, his conduct and his story were vigorously assailled by Mr. Bellinger. The con? flict between them was at times most exciting. Mr. Belllinger left nc doubt of his meaning. Mr. Holsen? bach was self-possessed, ready with his answers, vigorous and emphatic. More than once his resentment of the implied charges called fcnrth from him threats of personal violence against his questioner, and so th? combat bteween them was waged long ?and fierecely. That Mr. Bellinegi i showed discrepancies in the testimony of the witness will not be denied, bul that he "broke him down" in essen? tial particulars is equally untrue. Il is understood that Mr. Holsenbach'? reputation for veracity will be attack ed liter, and it is also said that his ere- ability will be vouched for by wit nesses for the defence. So there yoi are. Mr. Bellinger had another battli royal wtih Mr. M. C. L?rick, a mil emlpoyee in Columbia. Mr. Loricl claimed to have been standing in fron of the Opera House, just across th' street, when the shooting took place When he came to rehearse his testi mony before Mr. Bellinger there wa much excitement, the sum total o which was that the evidence given b; Mr. L?rick may not be received though it is one of the strong feature of the defenec. The witness himsel displayed much resentment of Mr. Be] linger's treatment of him. Mor than once he threatened his tormento from the stand, and he did so agar as he passed down to take his sea among the spectators. The witness who immediately pre ceded Mr. Tillman 'himself on th stand was Mr. E. B. Wilson, a cler in the office of the Comptroller Gen er?L He, too, was an eye-witness but at a distance of some fifty yardi Both the State and the defence prc fessed entire satisfaction with the ac count of the tragedy given by Mi Wilson, so he should think himself a exceedingly fortunate man. Walking near the monument h looked up Main street and saw Mi Tillman in the act of firing. Mi Tillman was abont two and one-hal feet from the outer edge of the side walk, and another man (presumabl; Senator Talbird) was in front of hir and partially hidden from the view o Mr. Wi .>on. At that time he did no see Mr. Gonzales at all, nor does h recall the knot of persons compose* of Mr. Brown, Mrs. Melton and Mr Holsenbach, who, according to thei testimony were jost behind Mr. Till man. The full reach of Mr. Tillman' arm was before the vision of Mr. Wil son. The State holds that Mr. Wilosn' description of the attitude of the mei substantiates its own claim, while Mr Nelson intimated that the defence at taches particular significance to th? manner in which he placed Mr. Till man. It remains to be seen what applica tion each of them will make of th< matter.-John Marshall, in News an< Courier. JAMES H. TILLMAN TESTIFIES Col. Tillman, after being sworn, took the stand, and, after stating thai he was a son of the late George D. Tillman, was boin and raised ii Edgefield county and studied at va rious schools said: "I had occasion tc go to Winnsboro to read law in th* office of my brother-in-law, Judge O. W. Buchanan. He was not a Judge al that time, being a member of thc House of Representatives. While there I had occasion to have writter an article concerning N. G. Gonzales, at that time the Columbia correspond? ent of the News and Courier. He hac misrepresented a speech which Capt. Tillman, now Senator Tillman, made, before the March Convention, and ] took occasion to correct it. I sign?e the nom dc plume "Fair Play,'' tc the article written. Mr. Gonzales wrote to thc editor of the Winnsborc paper demanding the name of thc writer of the article. I did not care to get into a newspaper controversy, but my friends advised me not to give my name; but when Mr. Gonzales wrote a bitter article in reply to mine, I did give my name and published it in the News and Herald. It was ab? solutely incorrect to say that I would not give my name. I had so many trans? actions with N. G. Gonzales that I do not recollect what was the next one, but when my uncle was elected Gov? ernor in 1890 I was invited to attend the State ball. Before doing so I found it was necessary for me to join the South Carolina Club. I got the endorsement, voluntarily, of former Governor Sheppard; of Edgefield and Gen. Benham. Late in the afternoon some of my friends came to me and told me that N. G. Gonzales had drummed up enough of his friends, under the rules of the club, to black ball me. My friends then withdrew my name. It was never formally pre? sented to the club. I was about 21 years of age at this time and had never held any public position or even aspired to one. "In consequence of the South Caro? lina Club affair, I sent Mr. Gonzales a message by Mr. George S. Legare, who is now a Congressman from the 1st district. I did not want to violate the laws of my State by sending a challenge, according to the Code, and Mr. Legare simply extended to Mr. Gonzales an invitation to meet me over in Georgia. "Mr. Legare carried only a verbal message, and when he returned after seeing Mr. Gonzales he told me that Gonzales wanted me to rednce my in? vitation to writing, which I refused to <?o, because I thought it was a trap set to place my uncle, then Governor, in an awkward position. I declined to reduce the challenge to writing, as it would have been a violation of the laws of South Carolina. I went to Georgia, but Mr. Gonzales did not come. After remaining there several days, I wrote him a letter. I told him the least he could do was to pay my hotel bill while waiting on him. At this time I do not think M. Gonzales was connected with any paper. I think Mr. Tighe or someone had suc? ceeded him as correspondent of The News and Courier. Shortly after this the entire matter was published in the Columbia Evening Journal and other newspapers by Mr. Gonzales. This was just about the time of the estabr iishment of the State newspaper. "The next clash was: I was in the newspaper business for a considerable period and was sent to Washington by. the Augusta Chronicle and Columbia Journal, and afterward the Atlanta Constitution. I arrived there shortly after the election of President Cleve? land for the second time, to cover South Carolina and Georgia news, particularly with reference to the dis? tribution of patronage for those States, together with the different as? pirants for positions. I wrote on the current news of tiie day from the best information I could obtain, and as all newspaper men do, except in South Carolina. Mr. Gonzales, as I recol? lect it, was an applicant for the posi? tion formerly held by Gen. Kennedy, as consul general to China. It has been said that he wanted to go to Rio Janeiro, but my impression now is that it was Shanghai, Chica. I wrote he would not be appointed. The state-. nient was written on the best auth&sft ty obtainable as a newspaper carees- - pondent. The Metropolitan HsteJ, ia Washington, is headquarters for.Sout?i ern people in Washington, and three fourths of them go there and hang around the lobbies. There was whexft I always went to get Southern news. When Mr. Gonzales came on to Wash? ington he asked about the article and why such a statement as had beer? printed was sent out by me, I told! Mr. Gonzales the information had been given upon the best advices that I could obtain as a newspaper man,. and it afterwards proved correct, audi that I simply sent out what news T could get. " I walked up to the cigar stand one day, after I had written that Gonzales would not be appointd, and bought some cigars. There was a crowd stand? ing around and after buying them I turned and passed them around. I did not know Mr. Gonzalse was there and saw at once I had made a mistake in offering him any. I remained in Wash? ington until 1894, wh*in I returned and began the practice of law with Col Croft. When the Spanish-American war commenced I offered my services to the Government, and I was appoint? ed lieutenant colon?l of the 1st South Carolina volunteers, without any ap? plication on my part. It was tendered me. After the regiment was organ? ized in Columbia we were sent to Chickamauga Park, and then to Jack? sonville, Fla. We thought Brooks's army corps, in which we were first put, would not get into the fighting, and through some influence at Wash? ington were transferred to Gen. Fitz hugh Lee's army corps, which, we un? derstood, was going to be sent to take Havana. "After the war with Spain was end? ed I felt it was unjust to the privates of my regiment, who had volunteered to go to the front, and who had giren up lucrative positions to accept the Government's pay of $13, or 816.50 a month, to keep them longer in the service. Many of them were married men and had left their families. I did not care to take them over to Cuba to make roads, as though *hey were in a convict camp. "Mr. Gonzales criticised me very severely, and said after my appoint? ment as colonel of the regimet, that I was trying to keep the men from beiDg mustered out, while I was in reality doing all 1 could to have them mus? tered out so that they could return to their homes. He was always very bitter towards me. He criticised me and tried to have me Court-martial? ed. Old George, a negro, who had gone to the regiment with me, was the pet of the regiment, and I gave him a very fine pistol. Some little nigger boys out there had stolen it while he was down-town. I took the nigger boys down and gave them a good whipping. Mr. Gonzales then at? tempted to have me Court-martialed and dismissed. I was arrested and brought before a magistrate and the Continued on page 2.