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 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..."
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment