Tootsy-Wootzy Whisky Clerk or Dirty, Low, Pusillanimous, Putrid, Pimp?

It all began with one paragraph, buried deep in a report, published in a small weekly newspaper. But it sparked a war of words that, while it did not, it could have ruined the careers of two of Kingstree's up-and-coming young men.

The paragraph that sparked a bombastic war of words.

Source; The County Record, Oct. 10, 1907

The report was the Williamsburg County Grand Jury's annual presentment, published October 10, 1907, in The County Record. Each year, committees of the Grand Jury visit the offices of county government and make a report to the court of their findings. That year, the paragraph in the report which sparked the outcry read: "The office of the County Board of Control was examined, and the books found neatly kept. The system of bookkeeping in this office is such, however, that we are unable to obtain a clear knowledge of the actual condition of the three dispensaries in this county." (The Board of Control had oversight of the county's dispensary system, Governor Ben Tillman's attempt to control the sale of alcoholic beverages through state-operated liquor stores.)

That's it. There was no open accusation, unlike in the paragraph dealing with the County Supervisor's office, which noted, "The Supervisor's office we found in an unsatisfactory condition. Practically no books were kept in said office from April until our examination. Claims ordered paid were not entered, and no minutes of the office were kept to show the routine of work..."

The Grand Jury report on the County Supervisor's Office in 1907.

Source; The County Record, Oct. 10, 1907

However, the following week John Dessasure "Dessie" Gilland, clerk to the Board of Control, penned an angry letter to The County Record, taking exception with the Grand Jury report as it addressed the Board of Control. The letter accused the Grand Jury committee of incompetence, stating "the expert accountant employed by the grand jury and the committee of investigation were not competent to understand the commonsense system of bookkeeping that is required by the state dispensary auditor," adding that no one could "ascertain the conditions of a business in the small space of two hours."

He went on to state that the dispensaries' books had been checked by the state and found to be in "perfect condition," noting that the books were always open for public inspection.

The next week, another letter appeared in the paper, this one signed by Philip Henry Stoll, a local attorney, who stated that while he was not a member of the Grand Jury, it had retained him to offer his legal expertise in the examination of offices and the writing of the report. He explained that in this capacity, he was present when the special committee of the Grand Jury attempted to examine the books of the Board of Control. 

Philip H. Stoll

In his letter to the paper, Stoll asked why Gilland was so "worked up," pointing out that the Grand Jury report said nothing for Gilland to be worked up about. 

Stoll then went on to explain what the committee has asked of the clerk (Gilland) and chairman of the Board of Control (J.L. Bass). He noted that the committee made no attempt to examine details of the board's operation but merely tried to ascertain the general condition of the dispensaries by asking three questions: How much money was spent for whiskey? How much was that whiskey sold for? How much whiskey was currently on hand? They then attempted to use those figures to discover the gross profits of the dispensaries.

Stoll noted that Gilland readily provided the figures the committee asked for, but the books for the Board of Control showed no profit at all. He wrote that Gilland then said he had made a mistake and provided another set of figures which showed a small profit. However, Bass insisted that there should be a net profit of over $10,000. Gilland, then, according to Stoll, produced a third set of figures, which showed a larger profit, but still not as much as the board chair stated.

Gilland said the system was "intricate," and noted that he had had to study it for a week before taking the job so that he could understand it. He said the committee's method of figuring gross profit did not "suit" the bookkeeping system. 

Stoll noted that the committee was unwilling to spend a week mastering the system and simply made reference in its report to its inability to match the books to the board chair's insistence of $10,000 profit. The committee, Stoll wrote, was lenient with Gilland as the committee members thought it obvious that the clerk did not understand his own books, evidenced by the three sets of figures he had presented. But, as they were only examining the office generally, they reported their findings in the report with no comment.

The next week, Gilland responded in another letter to the newspaper, this time attacking Stoll personally, describing him as an ex-State Representative and $20-per-annum-expert adviser to the Grand Jury. He added that Stoll had run a failed campaign for State Senate, opposing county dispensaries and insinuated that Stoll had a personal vendetta against the dispensary system. Gilland then called on the Grand Jury to abolish the position of legal adviser.

Gilland accused the members of the Grand Jury Committee of allowing Stoll to run the examination of the Board of Control's books, saying that when Stoll was presented with figures, he was in a "vast and unfathomable abyss" as he attempted to calculate gross profit. He further said that it was not part of his duty as bookkeeper to assist in such an examination. He further stated again that he took exception to the "erroneous report of the Grand Jury." He also again stated that the State Auditor had made three thorough exams and found his bookkeeping to be perfect.

Gilland then wrote that the Board Chair was correct, that the school, county, and towns had received $10,204.57 from the Board of Control in a distribution of net profits from the three dispensaries.

He concluded by saying that he would not continue the controversy with Stoll over the matter.

But, Stoll wrote another letter which appeared in the next week's paper, and which began,  "Who is this carrion crow that has flopped himself upon the topmost branch of the dispensary tree and imagines himself an eagle?" Stoll then launched into a personal attack on Gilland, mentioning that Gilland had washed out as a professional baseball player. He also mentions Gilland's reckless driving, and noted that Gilland appeared to think of himself as a professional pool player. (Bessie Britton, years later, mentioned Gilland's reckless driving in some of her columns.)

Stoll then accused Gilland of trying to distract the public from the issue by personally attacking Stoll. He called Gilland a "tootsy-wootsy whiskey clerk," and a "polliwog of fermented waters."

Parroting Gilland's words, Stoll wrote that he did indeed "find myself in a vast and unfathomable abyss between his net profits and his gross profits.

Stoll verified Gilland's claim that he had opposed the county dispensary system in his unsuccessful State Senate bid, but this had no bearing on the current controversy, he wrote. He added that he was the author of the Grand Jury report, but that he had sought Grand Jury foreman Hugh McCutchen's input on how to deal with the Board of Control in the report. He noted that the Grand Jury was allowed by law to pay someone $20 to assist in examining offices and to write the report. This was usually done by a member of the local bar, and that a number of other attorneys had fulfilled the role in the past.

As to what he thought of Gilland, Stoll wrote, that was not suitable for publication, but he was willing to let the controversy rest.

Gilland responded the next week by stating that he had not anticipated a newspaper controversy. "I am greatly humiliated when now I realize that I have become so degraded as to be associated by the press with a dirty, low, pusillanimous, putrid, pimp." He likewise accused Stoll of distracting from the issue by attacking his character. The bulk of the letter continues to vilify Stoll, and concludes with Gilland threatening that if "anything further appears in the press by hand of Philip H. Stoll, detrimental to me personally or in my official capacity, I shall not seek the aid of the press in retaliation."

The implied threat apparently sufficiently frightened mutual friends of the two men that they stepped in and insisted that they apologize to each other publicly. The November 21, 1907, issue of the newspaper carried two short letters. Gilland's was written on November 15, and stated, "After mature reflection and the intervention of some of our friends in common, I have concluded that the language I used in our recent controversy was unparliamentary and unwarranted by the cause of contention. I therefore withdraw such language in my article as was abusive and regret that in the heat of the newspaper argument, I should have used such expressions."

Stoll responded on November 16, noting, "Your letter of yesterday is at hand. In consideration of the retraction made therein by you, I will not reply to your recent article, and will take this opportunity to retract all disrespectful and opprobrious terms or words I may have used in my recent articles in The County Record."

We should mention that Gilland turned 24 years old during the time of the controversy, while Stoll, who also had a birthday during those six weeks, turned 33. Neither man's career suffered because of their much publicized war of words. Gilland went on to become clerk to the Town of Kingstree and a real estate broker before becoming an attorney himself. He moved to Florence in 1914 and had a long, successful legal career, serving as attorney for the City of Florence and as a municipal judge. Stoll served as Third Circuit Solicitor, two terms representing the Sixth Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representative, another term in the State House of Representatives and as a South Carolina Circuit Court Judge.

In 1944, Stoll was involved in another controversial matter, this time in Clarendon County, when he sentenced 14-year-old George Stinney to death after a one-day trial and a 10-minute deliberation by an all-white jury. Stinney was the second-youngest person ever executed in the United States. The Stinney conviction was vacated in 2014, citing that he had not received a fair trial as he did not have adequate legal representation and that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated. One of the attorneys who argued for the re-opening of the Stinney case was Kingstree native Steve McKenzie.

Mayor Physically Attacked Dentist Over Letter to the Editor

 In these times, social media is often accused of making us a less civil society. Its critics believe that the relative anonymity of these platforms make it easier to post derogatory comments without fear of retaliation than it would be if the people involved had to express themselves face-to-face. Some of these same critics long for the "good old days" when life was simpler and saner, and people were more cautious in the way they approached those who might not agree with them. I would caution those who long for those days to be very careful what you wish for. The next two blog posts will look at two confrontations that took place in Kingstree back in the so-called "good old days." We will see that the local weekly newspapers were sometimes used in much the same way that social media platforms are used today. And sometimes when those who disagreed met face to face, the encounter resulted in physical aggression. Let's begin.

Headline on article in the June 11, 1903 County Record that resulted in a months'

long feud between Mayor John Kelley and dentist A.M. Snider.

The first of these incidents took place in 1903, almost a hundred years before social media became a part of our everyday lives. Today's newspapers require a signature on letters to the editor, but in those days, it was more common to find a letter written and signed with a clever pen name. Such was the case of a letter that appeared on the front page of the June 11, 1903, County Record. The lengthy letter was signed, "More Anon," and while it was rambling and non-specific in its charges,  it contained sentences like this: "...in some other communities, Kingstree, for instance, where incompetency and reckless extravagance (saying nothing of what might be termed dishonesty) reign and have had, up to recently, full and unmolested sway." Clearly, the writer was accusing the mayor and town council of corruption. (You can read the full letter under the headline "Attacking Town Council" by clicking here.)

 The next week's paper contained a letter signed by Dr. A.M. Snider, a prominent local dentist. He admitted to writing the "More Anon" letter and noted that Mayor John A. Kelley had invited him to investigate the town's financial records, which he had done, and was now admitting that he had previously been misinformed and wished to apologize for and withdraw his earlier statements.

Mayor John A. Kelley

You'd think that might be the end of the matter. Not by a long shot.

The following week, another lengthy letter from Dr. Snider appeared. This time, he accused Mayor Kelley of forcing him under duress to sign the letter published June 18. He stated that Kelley was out of town when the original "More Anon" letter was published, but when he returned, he sent E.C. Epps to see Snider. Epps asked Snider to attend a meeting in the mayor's law office to discuss the letter. Snider wrote that he had reluctantly agreed. He had expected this to be a private meeting with Mayor Kelley, but when he arrived, he wrote, he found C.E. St. Amand, the town clerk; F.W. Fairey, one of Kelley's employees in the law office; and LeRoy Lee, another of Kingstree's prominent attorneys, there with the mayor.

Snider wrote that Kelley informed him that St. Amand was there to go over the town's ledger with him. Snider replied that he didn't feel competent enough in accounting to review the books, but he would like an outside accountant to go over them. Kelley insisted that the clerk provide a review then and there, and St. Amand went over the ledger entries from January through May, 1903. When he finished, Kelley asked Snider if he saw any discrepancies. Snider said he had not, but added that he was not sure he could recognize any problems that someone might want to conceal and would still like for a certified accountant to verify the transactions.

According to Snider, the mayor then produced an already prepared letter for Snider to sign in which Snider would state that he had been misinformed and that the books were in good shape. Snider refused, noting that Kelley then flew into a rage, beating Snider with his walking cane. Snider wrote that C.E. St. Amand tried to stop the mayor, but Kelley refused to listen to him and continued to hit Snider with his cane.

Snider reported that the chair in which he was sitting tipped over under the onslaught of the mayor's wrath, throwing him to the floor, where Kelley straddled him, pummeling him in the face with his fists. Snider wrote that St. Amand again tried to stop the mayor from his attack, but the mayor ordered him to desist. Snider said that under attack, he agreed to sign the letter, and only then did the mayor stop hitting him. Snider said he signed the letter, but he now felt the public had the right to know the conditions under which it had been signed.

The controversy continued into July, with editors C.W. Wolfe of The County Record and P.H. Stoll of The Weekly Mail publishing letters from someone using the name "Fair Play." Fair Play turned out to be former mayor, Captain W.H. Kennedy, whom Kelley had defeated in 1901 by a 39-28 vote margin. In fact, The Weekly Mail had been publishing Fair Play's letters for some time. They were written with much the same tone as the "More Anon" letter, vaguely accusing the mayor and town council of misappropriating town funds.

Wolfe and Stoll jointly interviewed both Kennedy and Snider, asking them to provide specific allegations of wrongdoing on behalf of the town so that the newspapers could investigate the issues and examine the records in order to substantiate the allegations. Kennedy "unhesitatingly and unequivocally stated that he knew of no discrepancies in the books or misappropriation of funds, had heard of none and had charged none." Snider declined to specify what irregularities his letters had alluded to.

Mayor Kelley wrote to the papers, stating that he had asked E.C. Epps, an expert accountant, to be present to review the ledger with Snider, but Epps had declined. Kelley also presented a sworn statement from LeRoy Lee detailing what had transpired with Snider in Kelley's office and affidavits from Fairey and St. Amand acknowledging the truthfulness of Lee's statement.

While Lee's accounting of what generally transpired matched Snider's, he differed with him on many of the details. He stated he arrived at Kelley's office while St. Amand was reviewing the financial records with Snider and offered to come back later, but both Kelley and Snider asked him to stay. When the presentation was over, Lee noted that Kelley asked Snider to apologize, and that Snider said that while he saw nothing immediately wrong with the figures, he was not prepared to issue an apology that afternoon. Kelley then demanded an apology, and Snider again refused.

Lee wrote that Kelley then asked Snider if he was armed. When Snider said he was not, Kelley closed and locked the office door and retrieved his "palmetto walking cane from the chimney corner" and attempted to strike Dr. Snider. Lee wrote that C.E. St. Amand jumped between them, receiving a blow to his arm. Kelley again attempted to strike Snider, and St. Amand again interceded, this time receiving a blow to the head. At that point, Lee reported, he pulled St. Amand out of the way.

Lee stated that Snider rose from his chair, and that he and Kelley "clinched," with Kelley taking him down easily. Kelley then began hitting Snider in the face with his fists. Snider begged Lee to "get this man off me," which Lee refused to do until Snider agreed to an apology. Snider agreed, and Kelley produced the already-prepared letter which Snider signed. 

Lee wrote that Kelley then asked if anyone had helped Snider write the "More Anon" letter. Snider denied that he had had help, but when Kelley persisted, Snider acknowledged that Capt. Kennedy had written perhaps one-third of the letter. Lee noted that Kelley then asked why Snider had approached W.T. Wilkins and told him that the accusations didn't apply to him, but only to Kelley and M.F. Heller. Snider denied doing that, but Kelley stated that Wilkins had told him otherwise.

Lee said Snider then asked for water, and F.W. Fairey escorted him to the back of the office where he washed up. When he returned, Lee wrote, Snider told Kelley that he did not blame him. Kelley reportedly replied, "I am sorry that you have been made a fool and used as a cat's paw by W.H. Kennedy." Lee wrote that Snider said that if his back and kidneys had been well, he would have put up a better fight, and Kelley offered Snider another chance "when your back and kidneys are well." An editorial in the Charleston Evening Post concluded that "anyone engaging in polemics should look well to the state of their back and kidneys, if they hope to overcome error by argument." (It should be noted that Snider was 61 years old, and Kelley was 54 at the time of the altercation.)

 C.W. Wolfe, in an editorial in The County Record, wrote that while neither Snider nor Kennedy offered any evidence of misappropriation, there had been many rumors in town about the council's role in a school bond appropriation. There had also been rumors about Councilman M.F. Heller ordering the town to pay for street repairs that may not have been authorized by full council. Rumors continued to swirl after the fight, and Wolfe and Stoll continued to seek interviews with Snider and/or Kennedy, with no satisfaction. In late July, Wolfe wrote, "No man of intelligence would do what they have done without a motive. To fathom their motive would be to plunge too deep in the realms of conjecture. As far as we are concerned, the whole affair is closed."

Philip H. Stoll

But, of course, it was not. In early August, P.H. Stoll wrote an editorial in The Weekly Mail, noting that while he was on vacation, his newspaper had published a letter from Capt. Kennedy, accusing Stoll of lying about Stoll and Wolfe's conversations with Kennedy concerning the various allegations about the town council. Stoll wrote that when he and Wolfe interviewed Kennedy, the former mayor alleged that town council had misappropriated dispensary funds by using them to repair streets. Now, Stoll wrote, Kennedy was claiming that he had merely asked about the use of those funds. Stoll said he had pointed out at the time of the interview that council could use its portion of the dispensary money in any way it saw fit and that was why that particular allegation had never been addressed by his newspaper.

Stoll then wrote that he believed Kennedy was still upset about losing the mayor's race to Kelley. Stoll suggested that Kennedy might be planning to run again for mayor and was using these allegations to attempt to discredit the mayor and council. Stoll noted that Kennedy "thought a little insinuation here and there, and a big loophole yonder, where he could skip out, if cornered, would be good politics on his part." Stoll wrote that he had no axe to grind, but that Kennedy "has several axes to grind and is anxious to pull himself out of the hole by pulling me into it."

The controversy was finally put to rest when Dr. Snider personally hired Georgetown attorney Walter Hazard and accountant Julian Beatty to investigate the town's financial reports. After spending an entire day reviewing the records, Hazard refused to comment to the press without the permission of the party/parties who had hired him. However, County Treasurer R.D. Rollins was present during the review as a representative for town council, and he reported that all accounts were in order, that a $290.08 debt left to the present council by the outgoing council had been properly paid using ordinary town funds. He also noted that dispensary money had been properly disbursed to the school and to the town and used according to all guidelines.

Next time we'll look at a war of words that also played out in the pages of the weekly newspaper.