Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The House assembled at 12:00 Noon. Deliberations opened with prayer by House Page Benjamin McCoy as follows:

" In the beginning God". That was the way it was as the Creation began. May it, likewise, be at the beginning of this Legislative Session - not only at the beginning of it, but throughout its every activity. On this initial day, make us to seize the strong right hand of God and hold fast to it, and to embrace His Word of truth and wisdom to lead us in all we do, say and think, following the example of Enoch of old who "walked with God." Cause us to be possessed with the strong and unfaltering resolve to be "Where Thou leadest, I will follow".

In the Name of Christ our Lord we pray. Amen.

Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER.

The following was received.

May 15, 1987
Honorable Robert J. Sheheen
506 Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29211

Dear Bob:

I told you in my last State of the Judiciary address that I would inform you by November 1st when I would retire as a member of the South Carolina Supreme Court.

For reasons satisfactory to me, I have decided to advise you today that I shall retire on February 26, 1988.

I wish to thank the General Assembly for, the strong support they have given me as Chief Justice and to the entire Judicial System.

I have not, at this time, decided what I shall do after I retire but I assure you I shall be active in the legal profession in some manner.

I have been privileged to spend my life in this most benevolent of professions, and to have worked with and known so many wonderful people. I love each of you.

May God look down favorably upon you.

Sincerely,
Julius B. Ness

Received as information.

The following was received.

December 7, 1987
The Honorable Frank Caggiano
Clerk of the Senate
Post Office Box 142
Columbia, SC 29202

The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the House
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211

Dear Mr. Caggiano and Ms. Shealy:

Please be informed that Mr. F. Hall Yarborough has withdrawn as a candidate for the Legislative Audit Council. The Legislative Audit Council election is scheduled for January 20, 1988, by the General Assembly.

Very truly yours,
Isadore E. Lourie
For the Legislative Audit
Council Nominating Committee

Received as information.

The following was received.

August 13, 1987
The Honorable Robert J. Sheheen
Speaker of The House
506 Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29211

Dear Bob:

Effective at noon on September 1, 1987, please accept my resignation from the South Carolina House of Representatives, District #51. I have had the honor of representing the people of Chesterfield, Kershaw, and Lancaster Counties for nine years and it is with many reservations that I relinquish this position. However, I believe that the opportunity that has come my way cannot be allowed to pass.

Sincerely yours,
Derial L. Ogburn

Received as information.

The following was received.

The Honorable Robert J. Sheheen
Speaker of the House
S.C. House of Representatives
P.O. Box 11867
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Bob:

This is to advise that effective September 1, 1987, I render my resignation as State Representative, House District 71, Richland County, S.C. House of Representatives.

As I begin a new career as Commissioner of the S.C. Department of Corrections, I will miss the General Assembly. The past thirteen years have been the happiest of my life, and the friends that I have made will always hold a special place in my heart.

I wish you and the other fine House Members only the best in the future. With kindest personal regards, I am

Sincerely yours,
Parker Evatt

Received as information.

The following was received.

December 15, 1987
The Honorable Robert J. Sheheen
1111 Church Street
Camden, S.C. 29020

Dear Bob:

I hereby submit my resignation from the State Reorganization Commission, effective Midnight, January 11, 1988. I am notifying you at this time in order for you to set the election for a replacement.

It has been an honor and a privilege to serve on the commission and be a part of the many valuable activities it performs for South Carolina. I sincerely appreciate the trust and confidence you and the other members of the House of Representatives placed in me by electing me as one of the House members to sit on the Reorganization Commission.

Now, however, I have assumed the responsibility of Chairman of the Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee; In addition to this, I have other on-going duties and responsibilities as a member of the House. Therefore, I feel it proper to resign that position, and allow the House to elect a new member in my place.

Thank you once again for your support and confidence.

Sincerely,
Juanita M. White

Received as information.

The following was received.

TO:             The Clerk of the Senate

The Clerk of the House

FROM:     Thomas E. Smith, Jr.

Chairman, Judicial Screening

Committee

DATE:     November 20, 1987

In compliance with the provisions of Act 119 of 1975, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.

Respectfully submitted,
Thomas E. Smith, Jr.
Chairman

/s/ Senator John A. Martin
/s/ Senator Isadore E. Lourie
/s/ Senator Glenn F. McConnell
/s/ Representative James M. Arthur
/S/ Representative Larry E. Gentry
/S/ Representative D. Malloy McEachin, Jr.
/S/ Representative John I. Rogers, III

Pursuant to Act 119 of 1975, this Committee was convened to consider the qualifications of candidates seeking to fill certain Judicial positions.

The Judicial Screening Committee is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the Judiciary. When notice is received that an individual intends to seek election or reelection to the Bench, the Committee conducts such investigation of the candidate as it deems appropriate and reports its Findings to the General Assembly prior to the election. It is not the function of the Committee to recommend one candidate over another or to suggest to the individual legislator for whom to vote. Our role is instead that of determining whether a candidate is qualified to sit as a Judge and under the statute our determination in that regard is not binding upon the General Assembly.

The Honorable George T. Gregory, Jr. was the only candidate who applied to fill the unexpired term of the Honorable Julius B. Ness, Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court. This term will expire on July 31, 1994.

Having completed the investigation as required by the Act, the Committee, by this Report, respectfully submits its Findings to the members of the General Assembly for their consideration.

The Report consists of the Transcript of the Proceedings before the Screening Committee held November 5, 1987, and the portions of the documents submitted by the respective candidates which were made part of the public record. The candidate filed an extensive Personal Data Questionnaire, a Statement of Economic Interests, five letters of reference including one from the candidate's banker, and the report of a background investigation by SLED. Those documents may be viewed in the office of Thomas E. Smith, Jr., Chairman, of the Judicial Screening Committee in 402 Gressette Building until the date and time of the election.

The candidate was present at the screening and testified under oath.

Senator Smith: I am going to call this Committee to order. This Screening Committee is convened pursuant to Act 119 of 1975 which requires a review of candidates for judicial office.

The function of the Committee is not to choose between candidates but rather to declare whether or not the candidates who offer for positions on the bench are in our judgment qualified to fill the position.

The inquiry which we make is a thorough one. It involves a complete personal and professional background check on every candidate. The candidate is investigated by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, including courthouse records. A statement of economic interest is required. We receive a credit report. We receive reports from the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline with respect to attorneys and Judges who are offering, and from the Board of Commissioners on Judicial Standards with respect to sitting judges.

The candidate's Personal Data Questionnaire details his personal history, health, and professional experience and contains five letters of reference.

We are here today for the purpose of examining a candidacy for the vacancy for the Chief Justice for the South Carolina Supreme Court. The notice of the vacancy was publicly noticed and no candidate has come forward other than the Honorable George T. Gregory, Jr. No citizen has asked to be heard with respect to his candidacy.

So, Judge, I would now ask you to come forward, raise your hand, and take the oath.

(Honorable George T. Gregory, Jr., candidate for Chief Justice for the South Carolina Supreme Court, was duly sworn by Senator Smith.)

SENATOR SMITH:

Q     Judge, you were last screened, I believe, in 1986 by this Committee. Is that correct?
A     1986, yes.
Q     You have had an opportunity to review our summary of your Personal Data Questionnaire which we prepared?
A     It was placed on my desk yesterday afternoon, and I read it over and it is fine with me.
Q     We do that both in the interest of time and printing costs to try to summarize it--basically to eliminate the questions. But, as far as you know, we have summarized it correctly?
A     That is correct.
Q     Is there anything in there that needs clarification?
A     I did not see anything.
Q     I want to ask you where McConnellsville is.
A     McConnellsville is between Chester and York.
Q     And it is not named for the Senator that is on this Committee?
A     Perhaps; I know that it is named for the McConnell family.
Q     Judge, is there any objection if we make the summary of your Personal Data Questionnaire a part of the record as if it were your sworn testimony?
A     None.

Senator Smith: We will do it at this point in the transcript.

Q     Your credit is reported as satisfactory. The records of all the applicable law enforcement agencies are negative. The records of the South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation are negative. The judgment rolls of Chester County are negative. You are a lifelong resident of the County of Chester, are you not?
A     I have always lived in Chester County.
Q     The Board of Commissioners on Judicial Standards has administered no sanctions and there are no investigations pending. The Board of Commissioners of Grievances and Discipline report that while you were an attorney there were no complaints or charges of any kind that have been filed against you. Your Statement of Economic Interest reports no conflicting ownerships, associations, or transactions which would cause any conflict.

So, your record is perfectly clear-exemplary, I might say. This has to be a proud occasion for you and I just wondered if there is any statement or any comment you would like to make in support of this office which you seek?
A     I really did not come prepared to make any statement. The past thirty-one-plus years that I have been privileged to serve as a Circuit Judge and as an Associate Justice have been very rewarding to me. I appreciate the opportunity that the people of this state and the General Assembly have given to me to serve.

When I was a youngster, I wrote a paper in the eighth grade and in that paper stated in my life's work I wanted to be a judge, and I was one of those people who were privileged at an early age to achieve that ambition, and I have thoroughly enjoyed all these years of serving.

All of my colleagues on the Court have been very supportive and wanted to all come with me today, and I discouraged them and told them not to come. We have an excellent, congenial Court to work with, and thoroughly enjoy what I have been doing, and what I do today, and if the General Assembly will give me an opportunity to serve further, I look forward to that for a period of time.
Q     Thank you, Judge. As I understand it, this term to which you aspire would expire on July 31, 1994?
A     That is correct. It is my understanding that it would expire before the present term that I now have.
Q     All right, sir.

SENATOR SMITH: Are there any questions from members of the Committee? Senator Lourie.

SENATOR LOURIE:

Q     Justice Gregory, first I want to tell you that we are privileged to have you before the Committee. I recall you always being deferential to lawyers and respectful to us as officers of the Court, which I think all of us of the Bar appreciate. You seem not to have forgotten that once you, too, were a lawyer.

I was wondering, sir, if you would comment on one aspect. Obviously the state continues to grow and litigation continues to grow. Do you feel like the present judicial system will be able to handle the burdens with the number of circuit judges we have, the Family Court judges, and so forth? Do you feel like until the year 2000, that we are situated until then fairly reasonably?
A     Senator, I really haven't given consideration down as far as the year 2000, but for the immediate future I think we perhaps have in place an adequate system and an adequate number of judges. I see no need in the immediate future. There are some needs and some of them are the physical plant. Some of the counties are really just not prepared for the disposition of business, but as long as the judges remain healthy and we can keep them all active and working, we perhaps have sufficient manpower at the present time and for the next several years. We generally try to look about five years down the road.
Q     Has the backlog situation which was so acute several years ago cleared up a good bit?
A     It has. Yes, it has.
Q     At trial and appellate levels?
A     It is my understanding except in several areas, the Chief Justice has advised us that the backlog of the trial bench no longer exists, and on our Court it doesn't. We have always been current on criminal appeals, but we really have no backlog of consequence now.
Q     And the Court of Appeals has fulfilled a good role?
A     The Court of Appeals has. We are very pleased.
Q     Judge Sanders has done a good job.
A     Judge Sanders is just a marvel.
Q     Your Honor, we have admired you for many years, and we are just delighted to have you with us today.
A     Thank you.

Senator Lourie:         Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Smith:         Thank you, Senator. Any further questions?

SENATOR SMITH:

Q     Judge, would you care to speak to the recent question about cameras in court? Are you a member of the Judicial Council?
A     I am not a member of the Judicial Council. I did attend a meeting of the Judicial Council on Tuesday afternoon at the request of Chief Justice Ness. I sat there very quietly and listened. The Chief Justice, of course, is a member of the Council. I did serve on the Council back in the sixties. I was a member for a period of time. As a Circuit Judge, I was an appointee to the Council.
Q     Judge Gregory, I want to echo what Senator Lourie and all of us feel, that I think your services represent the very finest that there can be to the legal profession and to the Court. Your conduct has always been without reproach, question, or any hint of impropriety, and I appreciate that and appreciate your scholarship. I happened to be reading a case yesterday, and I said, this is a pretty good case--because I happened to agree with it. Several years ago you had written the opinion and I said, well, Justice Gregory has done it again.

We thank you for coming before the Committee and we appreciate it. We would be delighted to hear if you have anything further to say.
A     I have nothing. I am delighted to be here. I appreciate the opportunity of coming and I pledge fidelity to the position of Chief Justice if the General Assembly sees fit to elect me to that position.

Senator Smith:     It is customary now that the Committee go into executive session, unless there is anything further to come before us in open session. Are there any further questions?

(WHEREUPON, the proceedings were concluded at 9:50 a.m.)

The Rule on Judicial Discipline and Standards states the following: "The assumption of the office of Judge imposes upon the incumbent duties in respect to his personal conduct which concern his relation to the state and its inhabitants, the litigants before him, the principles of law, the practitioners of law in his court, and the witnesses, jurors and attendants who aid him in the administration of its functions. In every particular his conduct should be above reproach. He should be conscientious, studious, thorough, courteous, patient, punctual, just, impartial, fearless of public clamor, regardless of public praise, and immune from private, political or partisan pressures. He should administer justice according to law, and deal with his appointments as a public trust. He should not allow other affairs or his private interests to interfere with the prompt and proper performance of his judicial duties, nor should he administer the office for the purpose of advancing his personal ambitions or increasing his popularity."

This Committee affirmatively and unanimously finds that Justice George T. Gregory, Jr., meets these high standards in every respect and we find him qualified.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas E. Smith, Jr., Chairman
/s/ Senator John A. Martin
/s/ Senator Isadore E. Lourie
/s/ Senator Glenn F. McConnell
/s/ Representative James M. Arthur
/s/ Representative Larry E. Gentry
/s/ Representative D. Malloy McEachin, Jr.
/s/ Representative John I. Rogers, III

Received as information.

(On motion of Rep. McEACHIN, the report was ordered printed in the Journal.)

The following was received.

TO:             The Clerk of the Senate

The Clerk of the House

FROM:     Thomas E. Smith, Jr.

Chairman, Judicial Screening Committee

DATE:     January 4, 1988

In compliance with the provisions of Act 119 of 1975, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.

Respectfully submitted,
Thomas E. Smith, Jr.
Chairman

/s/ Senator John A. Martin
/s/ Senator Isadore E. Lourie
/s/ Senator Glenn F. McConnell
/s/ Representative James M. Arthur
/s/ Representative Larry E. Gentry
/s/ Representative D. Malloy McEachin, Jr.
/s/ Representative John I. Rogers, III

Pursuant to Act 119 of 1975, this Committee was convened to consider the qualifications of candidates seeking to fill certain Judicial positions.

The Judicial Screening Committee is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the Judiciary. When notice is received that an individual intends to seek election or reelection to the Bench, the Committee conducts such investigation of the candidate as it deems appropriate and reports its Findings to the General Assembly prior to the election. It is not the function of the Committee to recommend one candidate over another or to suggest to the individual legislator for whom to vote. Our role is instead that of determining whether a candidate is qualified to sit as a Judge and under the statute our determination in that regard is not binding upon the General Assembly.

The Honorable David W. Harwell ran for reelection as Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court and was unopposed.

Benny R. Greer was the only candidate who applied to fill the unexpired term of the Honorable S. Norwood Gasque, Judge of the Family Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2. This term will expire on February 29, 1989.

There is a contested race to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of the Honorable Walter J. Bristow, Jr., Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit. Judge Bristow will retire effective July 1, 1988. Two candidates are seeking to fill this term. A brief summary of the background of each candidate is as follows:

The Honorable Carol Connor: (Columbia, S.C.) She was born in Kingstree, South Carolina and is 37 years of age. She is married and has two children. She was graduated from Converse College in 1972 and earned a J.D. Degree from the University of South Carolina School of Law. She is presently Judge of the Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2.

G. Thomas Cooper, Jr. (Camden, S.C.) He was born in Wilmington, Delaware and is 47 years of age. He is married and has three children. He was graduated from Clemson University in 1963 and earned a J.D. Degree from George Washington University. He is presently a partner in the private practice of Cooper, Beard & Dibble.

There is a contested race to fill the vacancy created by the imminent election of the Honorable George T. Gregory, Jr. as Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court. This term will expire on July 31, 1996. Two candidates are seeking to fill this unexpired term. A brief summary of the background of each candidate is as follows:

The Honorable Rodney A. Peeples (Barnwell, S.C.) He was born in Hampton County, South Carolina and is 47 years of age. He is married and has two children. He was graduated from the University of South Carolina in 1961 and earned a J.D. Degree from the University of South Carolina School of Law. He is presently Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit.

The Honorable Jean H. Toal (Columbia, S.C.) She was born in Columbia, South Carolina and is 44 years of age. She is married and has two children. She was graduated from Agnes Scott College in 1965 and earned a J.D. Degree from the University of South Carolina School of Law. She is presently a partner in the private practice of Baker, Barwick, Ravenel, Toal & Bender.

Having completed the investigation as required by the Act, the Committee, by this Report, respectfully submits its Findings to the members of the General Assembly for their consideration.

The Report consists of the Transcript of the Proceedings before the Screening Committee held at the State House on December 10, 1987, and the portions of the documents submitted by the respective candidates which were made part of the public record. Each candidate filed an extensive Personal Data Questionnaire, a Statement of Economic Interests, five letters of reference including one from the candidate's banker, and the report of a background investigation by SLED. Those documents may be viewed in the office of Thomas E. Smith, Jr., Chairman, of the Judicial Screening Committee in 402 Gressette Building until the date and time of the election.

The candidates were present at the screening and testified under oath.

SCREENING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEE TO - REVIEW CANDIDATES FOR JUDGESHIP POSITIONS FOR THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #2, JUDGE OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, HELD IN ROOM 106, GRESSETTE STATE OFFICE BUILDING, COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1987, COMMENCING AT 9:30 A.M.

MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE IN ATTENDANCE:

SENATOR THOMAS E. SMITH, JR., CHAIRMAN

SENATOR ISADORE E. LOURIE

SENATOR JOHN A. MARTIN

SENATOR GLENN F. MCCONNELL

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES M. ARTHUR

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY E. GENTRY

REPRESENTATIVE D. MALLOY MCEACHIN, JR.     REPRESENTATIVE JOHN I. ROGERS, III

SENATOR SMITH: THIS SCREENING COMMITTEE IS CONVENED PURSUANT TO ACT 119 OF 1975 REQUIRING THE REVIEW OF CANDIDATES FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE. THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMITTEE IS NOT TO CHOOSE BETWEEN CANDIDATES BUT RATHER TO DECLARE WHETHER OR NOT THE CANDIDATES WHO OFFER FOR POSITIONS ON THE BENCH ARE IN OUR JUDGMENT QUALIFIED TO FILL THE POSITION. THE INQUIRY WHICH WE MADE IS A THOROUGH ONE. IT INVOLVES THE COMPLETE PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND CHECK ON EVERY CANDIDATE. THE CANDIDATE IS INVESTIGATED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, INCLUDING COURTHOUSE RECORDS. A STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST IS REQUIRED. WE RECEIVE A CREDIT REPORT. WE RECEIVE A REPORT FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE WITH RESPECT TO ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES WHO ARE OFFERING AND FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS WITH RESPECT TO SITTING JUDGES. THE CANDIDATE'S PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE DETAILS HIS PERSONAL HISTORY, HEALTH AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND CONTAINS FIVE LETTERS OF REFERENCE.

WE CONVENE TODAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXAMINING THE CANDIDATES FOR SEVERAL VACANCIES. THE NOTICE OF VACANCIES WAS PUBLICLY NOTICED AND NO CANDIDATE HAS COME FORWARD OTHER THAN FOR THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, THE HONORABLE DAVID W. HARWELL. FROM THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FAMILY COURT SEAT NUMBER 2, BENNY R. GREER; FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, THE HONORABLE CAROL CONNOR AND G. THOMAS COOPER, JR.; AND, FOR THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT THE HONORABLE RODNEY A. PEEPLES AND THE HONORABLE JEAN H. TOAL. NO CITIZEN HAS ASKED TO BE HEARD WITH RESPECT TO JUSTICE HARWELL OR MR. GREER. THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO BE HEARD WITH REFERENCE TO THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT VACANCY AND THE VACANCY ON THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT.

AT THIS TIME I WILL ASK JUSTICE HARWELL IF HE WOULD APPROACH, AND LET ME SAY THAT WE TRIED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE COMFORTABLE FOR THE WITNESSES BUT EVERYTHING IS BOLTED TO THE FLOOR AND WE COULDN'T MOVE IT AND ALSO THE COURT REPORTER NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO SEE EVERYBODY'S FACE AND IT WAS HARD--IF SEATED, SHE WAS BLOCKED FROM THAT, SO WE HOPE YOU DON'T MIND STANDING FOR A FEW MINUTES, JUDGE?

JUDGE HARWELL: NOT AT ALL.

SENATOR SMITH: I WILL ASK YOU IF YOU WOULD RAISE YOUR HAND AND TAKE THE OATH.

(HONORABLE DAVID W. HARWELL, CANDIDATE FOR THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, WAS DULY SWORN BY SENATOR SMITH.)

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR SMITH:

Q     JUDGE HARWELL, ALL THE CANDIDATES SUBMIT A PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY, AND IN AN EFFORT TO TRY TO SAVE PAPERWORK, BECAUSE THIS NEEDS TO BE PRINTED IN THE JOURNAL, WE TRY TO ELIMINATE THE QUESTIONS AND DO A SUMMARY OF THE TESTIMONY AND WE TRY TO DO IT FAIRLY. WE MADE ONE ERROR IN YOURS. WE TOOK TEN YEARS OFF YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE AND WE WILL CORRECT THAT. YOU WERE ELECTED TO THE HOUSE IN 1962 INSTEAD OF '72, BUT HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THAT SUMMARY?

A     YES.

Q     IS IT CORRECT AS FAR AS YOU KNOW?

A     AS FAR AS I KNOW. THERE MAY BE A DATE OR TWO WRONG BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER IT'S SO FAR BACK.

Q     ANYTHING IN THERE WE NEED TO CLARIFY OR IMPROVE ON?

A     NOTHING THAT I CAN RECALL.

Q     WOULD YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION IF WE JUST TAKE THAT SUMMARY AND MAKE IT A PART OF THE SUMMARY AS YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY?

A     NO OBJECTION.

SENATOR SMITH: WE WILL DO IT AT THIS POINT IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

1.     David W. Harwell

Home Address:     Business Address:

Route 1, Box 436     Drawer X, City-Co. Complex

Florence, SC 29501     Florence, SC 29501

2.     He was born in Florence, South Carolina on January 8, 1932.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was divorced on November 20, 1979 in the Family Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit on the grounds on one year's continuous separation.
He has 2 children: Robert Bryan, age 28 (attorney) and William Baxter, age 27 (leasing agent for Edens & Avant Co.)

5.     Military Service: 1952-1954, U. S. Navy Airman, 450-09-77, Honorable Discharge.

6.     He attended Sewanee (University of the South) from 1950- 1951 (left to transfer to University of South Carolina); University of South Carolina, 1951 (left to transfer to University of Texas); University of Texas, 1951 - 1952 (entered U.S. Navy); University of South Carolina, 1954 (entered University of South Carolina Law School); University of South Carolina Law School, 1955-1958, LLB (J.D.).

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:
General practice, 1958-1973; Resident Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit, 1973-1980; Associate Justice, South Carolina Supreme Court, 1980 to present.

15.     Judicial Office: 1973-1980, Resident Circuit Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit, elected by the General Assembly; Court of General Jurisdiction 1980 to present, Associate Justice, South Carolina Supreme Court (the Highest appellate court in the state).

16.     Public Office: South Carolina House of Representatives, elected 1962, served until 1973 when elected Resident Circuit Judge.

19.     He is Director of Harwell Farms & Investments, Inc. (family farming and real estate).

23.     Sued: He has been sued by disgruntled litigants or prisoners but all cases have been dismissed.

25.     Health is good.

26.     He was hospitalized in 1981 and 1986 for a heart attack and was hospitalized in 1984 and 1986 for a hernia.

28.     Dr. Tommy Hearon, 2709 Laurel Street, Columbia, South Carolina is still treating him for his 1986 heart attack.

32.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Hopewell Presbyterian Church, Mason, Shriner, and Phi Delta Phi Legal Fraternity.

33.     He served as Chairman of the South Carolina Sentencing Guideline Commission and is the recipient of the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association Portrait and Scholarship Fund at USC Law School.

34.     Five letters of reference:

(a)     Robert G. Phillips, Vice President

Citizens and Southern National Bank of S.C.

P.O. Box F-3, Florence, SC 29503

(b)     The Hon. J.B. Ness, Chief Justice

S.C. Supreme Court

P.O. Box 909, Bamberg, SC 29003

(c)     The Hon. George T. Gregory, Jr.

S.C. Supreme Court

P.O. Box 99, Chester, SC 29706

(d)     The Hon. A. Lee Chandler

S.C. Supreme Court

P.O. Drawer 9, Darlington, SC 29532

(e)     The Hon. Ernest A. Finney, Jr.

S.C. Supreme Court

P.O. Drawer 1309, Sumter, SC 29151

Q     YOUR CREDIT IS REPORTED AS SATISFACTORY. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE SAY THAT AS AN ATTORNEY NO COMPLAINTS WERE FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION ADVISES US THEY HAVE NO RECORD OF REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS CLEAR. THE FLORENCE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN CONTACTED AND THEIR RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE, WHICH MEANS THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD. THE FLORENCE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN CONTACTED AND THEIR RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE, MEANING NOTHING ON THERE. THE CRIMINAL RECORDS SECTION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION WERE CHECKED AND THEIR RECORDS SHOWED NOTHING NEGATIVE, AND THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF FLORENCE COUNTY WERE CHECKED AND THERE ARE NO JUDGMENTS AGAINST YOU THERE. YOUR FINGERPRINT CARD FROM THE F.B.I. SAYS YOU ARE CLEAR.

A     WHAT A RELIEF.

Q     NO SURPRISE TO ANYONE. JUDGE, THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I HAVE, YOU HAVE DISCLOSED IN CONNECTION WITH AN ANSWER TO YOUR HEALTH THAT YOU WERE HOSPITALIZED IN '81 AND '86 FOR A HEART ATTACK AND HOSPITALIZED '84 AND '86 FOR A HERNIA. YOU HAD A HEART ATTACK?

A     THAT WASN'T A VERY GOOD YEAR. IN FACT, I HAD A HEART ATTACK ONE YEAR AGO TODAY.

Q     GOOD HEAVENS.

A     BUT MY HEALTH IS GOOD. I WILL PROBABLY BE CALLING MY DOCTOR IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS JUST FOR A CHECK-UP. HE SAID DON'T BOTHER HIM UNLESS I HAVE SOME PROBLEMS, SO I HAVEN'T HAD ANY PROBLEMS. MY HEALTH IS GOOD AND I DO ALL OF THE THINGS THAT I DID PRIOR TO MY HEART ATTACK BUT MAYBE NOT AS OFTEN AS I DID.

Q     THE SENATOR FROM FAIRFIELD WOULD TELL YOU THAT IS PERFECTLY NORMAL.

SENATOR MARTIN: I WENT AROUND THE WORLD WITH HIM AND I WENT TO BED WAY BEFORE HE DID.

Q     ARE YOU ON ANY MEDICATION FOR THAT?

A     I TAKE AN ASPIRIN IN THE MORNING AND PROCARDIA, THAT IS ALL.

SENATOR SMITH: ANY QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE? (NO RESPONSE.) JUDGE, THANK YOU, SIR. DO YOU HAVE ANY STATEMENT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE?

A     NONE AT ALL. IT'S A PLEASURE TO SEE YOU ALL. I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT WHEN I FIRST WALKED IN AND I SAW ALL THESE PRETTY LADIES, I THOUGHT YOU HAD SOME NEW MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND I HADN'T BEEN OVER TO THE LEGISLATURE LATELY.

SENATOR SMITH: THEY ARE THE LADIES THAT DO THE WORK.

SENATOR MARTIN: THEY HAVE BEEN SCREENED TOO.

SENATOR SMITH: THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. YOU MAY REMAIN WITH US OR BE EXCUSED.

A     IF I COULD BE EXCUSED, WE ARE IN SESSION AND I NEED TO GET BACK OVER TO THE COURT.

SENATOR SMITH: AT THIS TIME WE WILL MOVE TO EXAMINE THE HONORABLE BENNY R. GREER FOR THE VACANCY ON THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FAMILY COURT, SEAT NUMBER 2. WE ARE DELIGHTED TO HAVE YOU. WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR HAND AND TAKE THE OATH.

(HONORABLE BENNY R. GREER, CANDIDATE FOR JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #2, WAS DULY SWORN BY SENATOR SMITH.)

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR SMITH:

Q     MR. GREER, YOU OF COURSE WERE LAST SCREENED IN 1984 I BELIEVE AND THIS WAS FOR A TERM AS UNDERSTAND IT TO EXPIRE IN FEBRUARY OF '89, WOULD THAT BE CORRECT AS FAR AS YOU KNOW?

A     I BELIEVE SO, SIR.

Q     YOU HAVE SEEN I TRUST OUR SUMMARY OF THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     AND IS IT CORRECT INSOFAR AS YOU KNOW?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     WE HAVEN'T LEFT ANYTHING IMPORTANT OUT OR MADE IT TOO SHORT, HAVE WE?

A     NO.

Q     ANYTHING THAT NEEDS CLARIFICATION?

A     NO, SIR.

Q     IS THERE ANY OBJECTION IF WE MAKE THIS SUMMARY A PART OF THE SUMMARY AS YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY?

A     NO OBJECTION.

SENATOR SMITH: IT WILL BE DONE AT THIS POINT IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

1.     Benny R. Greer

Home Address:     Business Address:

106 Min-Lou Circle     P.O. Drawer 519

Darlington, SC 29532     100 St. John Street

Darlington, SC 29532

2.     He was born in Greer, South Carolina on August 28, 1925.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Iris Jeannyne Allsbrook on June 4, 1947. They have 4 children: Ray, Jr., age 40 (Public School Teacher and Coach); Rebecca G. Moss, age 37 (Certified Music Teacher [inactive], housewife); Katherine G. Robinson, age 35 (Teacher of Hearing Impaired Children [presently inactive], housewife); Thomas, age 34 (Guidance Counselor, Airport High School).

5.     Military Service: United States Army, S/Sgt., December 20, 1943 - May 12, 1946; Honorable Discharge: Serial Number: 34-895-888

6.     He attended the University of South Carolina, September, 1946 - June, 1951; A. B. Degree in Political Science and English. LLB Degree, converted to Juris Doctor Degree, September, 1970.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:
Associate, Law OfficeS of James P. Mozingo, III, Darlington, SC, 1951 - 1961; Partner, Greer and Chandler, Darlington, SC, 1962-1976; Partner, Greer and Milling, Darlington, SC, 1976 to date.

9.     Frequency of appearances in court for the past five years:

Federal - Regularly/usually two to four cases pending

State - Often/continually have number of active cases

Other - Regularly appear before administrative bodies

10.     Percentage of litigation:

Civil: 75% Domestic: 25%
Criminal: Have not practiced criminal law for past five (5) years

11.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury: approximately 70%

Non-JurY: approximately 30%

sole counsel/40% chief counsel/40 associate counsel/20%

12.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM

13.     Judicial Office: He has not held judicial office, except that on two (2) occasions he served as special Circuit Judge for South Carolina by Commission of the Governor at the direction of the South Carolina Supreme Court. One case, South Carolina Insurance Company v. Collins, was appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court and affirmed. The case is reported at 269 SC 282, 237 SE2d 358.

15.     Unsuccessful candidate: He was certified as being qualified for Federal District Judge by the Federal Screening Committee in 1979 and as qualified by the South Carolina Judicial Screening Committee for Circuit Judge in 1984. Judge Cottingham was elected to the Fourth Circuit.

17.     He has practiced law continuously since 1951. Prior to and during the time of his college education he worked in a textile plant, in a grocery supermarket, and had other part-time jobs.

23.     Health is good.
24.     He was hospitalized for gall bladder surgery April 10-17, 1978. He was approximately another week in getting back to full-time work.

25.     He wears bifocals, which gives him normal vision. He has apparently some scar tissue in his shoulder from an old sports injury which he has had for all of his adult life. It restricts him from such activities as playing tennis but does not interfere with his work.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Member of the Board of Trustees for South Carolina Ministries for the Aging of South Carolina Baptist Convention, 1978-1982/Chairman of Board, 1980-1982/also, 1985 to present; Deacon, Chairman of Personnel Committee, member of Finance Committee/First Baptist Church, Darlington, SC; Darlington Chamber of Commerce; American Legion; Veterans of Foreign Wars.

31.     He is past member and Chairman of the South Carolina State Judicial Council. He is a member of the South Carolina Judicial Standards Commission. He is a member of the Board of Directors of Legal Services, Fourth Judicial Circuit.

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a)     William A. Hill, Senior Vice-President

Carolina Bank & Trust Company

P.O. Box 59, Darlington, SC 29532

(b)     Thomas C. Kistler, President

Kistler Funeral Home

P.O. Box 76, 481 Pearl Street

Darlington, SC 29532

(c)     Allard A. Allston

Josten's Jewelry

P.O. Drawer 725, 822 South Main St.

Darlington, SC 29532

(d)     J. Thomas Garrett, Executive Director

S.C. Baptist Ministries for the Aging, Inc.

P.O. Box 4000, Darlington, SC 29532

(e)     B. Edward Hursey, Manager Human Resources

Chairman of Darlington County School Board

115 Lawson Road, Darlington, SC 29532

ADDENDUM TO QUESTION #12:

(a)     Neese v. Southern Railway, 216 F2d 772, Certiorari Granted 75 S. Ct. 439. Final Opinion 76 S. Ct. 131, 350 U.S. 76, 100 L. Ed. 60

This was an action brought under the Federal Employers Liability Act for the death of a 22-year-old car inspector employed by the Defendant. The Deceased was performing his duties at night in an improperly lighted freight yard when he was struck by one of the Defendant's trains. The Jury found that the Defendant was negligent and returned a verdict for the Plaintiff in the amount of $50,000.00. Mr. Greer was actively involved in the preparation of the case, the drafting of all pleadings and participated in the presentation of evidence at the trial. He was also responsible for the handling of all Motions and legal issues during the trial. He participated in the Brief on appeal to the Court of Appeals.

(b)     State v. D.D. Murphy (The case was not reported because the verdict of the Jury was "Not Guilty")

Former Insurance Commissioner, D.D. Murphy, along with two others, was charged in a bribery indictment with having misused his position while Insurance Commissioner to force the sale of a life insurance company to another company in Chicago, Illinois. The trial required ten days, including evening session. The Defendant Murphy and his co-Defendants were acquitted. Mr. Greer was involved in this case during its preparation for trial and the trial itself. He was principally responsible for all legal issues, Motions, etc.

(c)     Bennett and Shealy v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, 251 F2d 934

These two Plaintiffs were injured when trains of the Defendant traveling in opposite directions at Hortense, Georgia, collided. At the time of the collision the Plaintiffs were employed by the United States Postal Service and were assigned to a U.S. mail car on the Southbound train. They brought actions for personal injuries received. A verdict was returned for the Plaintiff Bennett in the amount of $45,000.00 actual damages and $10,000.00 punitive damages, and for the Plaintiff Shealy in the amount of $35,000.00 actual damages and $10,000.00 punitive damages. Mr. Greer was involved in this case in the drafting of all pleadings, assisted in the preparation of evidence, participated actively in the trial itself, prepared the Briefs on appeal and made Argument in the Court of Appeals.

(d)     Young v. Warr, 252 S. E. 179, 165 S. E. 2d 797

This was an action in which the Plaintiff received injuries to his spinal cord which rendered him a paraplegic. Riding in the vehicle with him were eight other individuals, including the driver. In the accident three passengers were killed, two others rendered paraplegics, with serious injuries to the remaining passengers. The accident occurred when the vehicle in which the Plaintiff was a passenger and traveling, according to testimony, at a high and excessive rate of speed, crashed into the rear of a slow-moving tractor trailer at a point on Interstate 95 engulfed in fog. The Jury returned a verdict in the amount of $500,000.00 which was reduced by the Circuit Judge in the amount of $100,000.00. Mr. Greer drafted all of the pleadings in this matter, participated to a limited extent in the preparation of the evidence, was responsible for the handling of the issue of independent contractor v. employee during the trial and participated actively in the trial. He prepared the Briefs on appeal and made the principal argument before the South Carolina Supreme Court.

(e)     Elliott v. Black River Electric Cooperative, 233 S.C. 233, 104 SE2d 357

The Plaintiff's intestate, a farmer, was electrocuted when the well-pipe which he was repairing made contact with a high tension line directly overhead. The jury returned a verdict in the amount of $106,100.00 actual damages and $5,000.00 punitive damages which was affirmed on appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court. Mr. Greer drafted all of the pleadings, handled all legal matters prior to trial and during trial, prepared the Briefs on appeal and made the principal argument in the Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Q     YOUR CREDIT IS REPORTED AS SATISFACTORY. YOU HAVE SO MANY CASES IN HERE AND I WANT TO COME BACK TO A COUPLE OF THEM. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE ADVISE US THERE ARE NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND THAT HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS CLEAR. THE DARLINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, THE DARLINGTON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE CRIMINAL RECORDS SECTION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION ALL INDICATE NEGATIVE OR NO RECORD. JUDGMENT ROLLS OF THE DARLINGTON COUNTY CLERK OF COURT'S OFFICE WERE CHECKED AND THEY ARE NEGATIVE. YOUR FINGERPRINT CARD IS FINE. THE F.B.I. THINKS YOU ARE A GOOD FELLOW BASED ON THAT. OF COURSE TO THOSE OF US WHO PRACTICE LAW IN THE PEE DEE AND ACROSS THE STATE YOU HAVE AN OUTSTANDING REPUTATION AS AN EXCELLENT LAWYER.

A     THANK YOU.

Q     WHY THE BENCH? WHY THE FAMILY COURT?

A     I FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT THE FAMILY COURT IS A VERY VITAL PART OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM. I FEEL THAT WITH THE DEVELOPING LAW AND AS THE LEGISLATION THAT IS PASSED, JUDICIAL INVOLVEMENT, THAT IT BECOMES MORE AND MORE VITAL. I FEEL THAT IN ADDITION TO THE BASIC QUALITIES THAT A JUDGE SHOULD HAVE, THAT EXPERIENCE AND MATURITY ARE VITAL QUALIFICATIONS. I HAVE EXPRESSED MYSELF ON HOW I FEEL ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS COURT AND I FEEL THAT I CAN MAKE A CONTRIBUTION THERE AND SO I HAVE CHOSEN TO SEEK THIS POSITION.

Q     MR. GREER, I WILL ASK YOU, IN THE ATTACHMENT IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NUMBER 12 WHICH WAS SOME OF THE HIGH POINTS OF YOUR LEGAL CAREER, YOU CITED THE CASE OF NEESE VERSUS SOUTHERN RAILROAD, DID THAT CASE GO TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     NO TROUBLE SINCE YOUR GALLBLADDER IN 1978 WITH YOUR HEALTH?

A     NO, SIR.

SENATOR SMITH: ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE MCEACHIN:

Q     MR. GREER, I SEE IN YOUR PERSONAL DATA SUMMARY THAT YOU SAY YOU CAN'T PLAY TENNIS BECAUSE OF A SHOULDER INJURY, WHO TAUGHT GRADY HIS BACKHAND?

A     I DIDN'T.

SENATOR SMITH: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? (NO RESPONSE.)

Q     MR. GREER, I WANT TO SAY ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE AND I THINK THE JUDICIARY AND CERTAINLY THE LEGISLATURE THAT IS A TRIBUTE TO YOU AND YOUR STANDING IN THAT CIRCUIT AND OTHERWISE THAT YOU ARE UNOPPOSED FOR THIS POSITION AND I AM ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED TO KNOW THAT YOU SEEK THE BENCH BECAUSE I THINK YOU WILL BRING TO THE BENCH REAL CREDIT. I HATE TO SEE YOU LEAVE THE PRACTICE OF LAW BECAUSE I ENJOY GETTING BEAT UP BY YOU.

A     YOU ARE VERY KIND, SENATOR.

Q     LET ME ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS, ARE YOU STILL COUNSEL FOR THE DARLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     I AM JUST LOOKING FOR WORK FOR MYSELF AFTER YOU LEAVE. (LAUGHTER.) THANK YOU, SIR.

MR. ROGERS: MR. CHAIRMAN, I MIGHT OBSERVE THAT MR. GREER IS MY LAWYER AND I NEED A LAWYER A LOT. (LAUGHTER.)

A     THANK YOU.

SENATOR SMITH: I WANTED TO SAY HE ALSO GRADUATED FROM THE MOZINGO SCHOOL OF LAW AND POLITICS AS DID ABOUT 20 OF THE REST OF US. I WANT TO SAY OUR PROCEDURE ON THIS WILL BE--IF IT'S ALL RIGHT WITH THE COMMITTEE--THAT WE WILL JUST TAKE UP THE QUALIFICATIONS, THE QUESTION AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE DAY RATHER THAN GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AFTER EACH WITNESS. I AM GOING TO SUGGEST THAT THE COMMITTEE TAKE ABOUT A FIVE MINUTE BREAK JUST FOR A SECOND. ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? NO OBJECTION VOICED.

SENATOR SMITH: AT THIS TIME WE WILL MOVE TO CONSIDER THE VACANCY FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT. TWO CANDIDATES HAVE QUALIFIED, HONORABLE CAROL CONNOR AND G. THOMAS COOPER, JR. JUDGE CONNOR, IF YOU WOULD COME FORWARD, PLEASE.

(HONORABLE CAROL CONNOR, CANDIDATE FOR JUDGE OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, WAS DULY SWORN BY SENATOR SMITH.)

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR SMITH:

Q     JUDGE CONNOR, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE INTEREST OF SPACE IN THE LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL WE HAVE TRIED TO TAKE YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE, YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE, AND SUMMARIZE IT FOR PRINTING PURPOSES. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW OUR SUMMARY OF WHAT YOU SENT US?

A     I HAVE.

Q     DOES IT APPEAR TO BE CORRECT?

A     IT DOES.

Q     ANYTHING IN THERE THAT NEEDS CLARIFICATION OR ELABORATION?

A     I AM CERTAINLY GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS BUT AS FAR AS I CAN TELL EVERYTHING IS ACCURATE.

Q     IF IT'S AGREEABLE WITH YOU, WE WILL MAKE THE SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD AS YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY AND IT WILL BE DONE AT THIS POINT IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

1.     Carol Connor

Home Address:     Business Address:

6705 Sandy Shores Road     P.O. Box 192

Columbia, SC 29206     Columbia, SC 29202

2.     Born in Kingstree, South Carolina on January 23, 1950.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     She was married to Palmer Freeman, Jr. on April 26, 1986.
She was previously divorced on July 11, 1983. She was the moving party, and the divorce was granted on the grounds of one year's separation (no fault). She has a son, Timothy Connor-Murphy, age 9 and Wallace Connor Freeman, age 10 months.

5.     Military Service: None

6.     She attended Converse College in Spartanburg, SC, 1968-1972, B.A. and the University of South Carolina Law School, 1973-1976, Juris Doctor.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:
Assistant South Carolina Attorney General, 1976 to 1977; Assistant Public Defender, Richland County, 1977 to 1980; Deputy Public Defender, Richland County, 1980 to 1981; law firm of Ellison, Quinn & Connor, 1981 to 1984; Family Court Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit, February, 1984 to present.

15.     Judicial Office: She has been a Family Court Judge for the Fifth Judicial Circuit for almost four (4) years. Family Court in South Carolina hears divorces, custody disputes, adoptions, juvenile criminal cases, Department of Social Services Abuse and Neglect cases, and other cases involving domestic matters.

16.     Public Office: None

18.     She taught tenth grade English at Kingstree High School for approximately four (4) months in 1972-1973 for a teacher who was on maternity leave.

20.     While on a rafting trip on the Chatooga River, she received a citation from the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife for failing to have on a life jacket. The U.S. Magistrate suspended the imposition of any fine.

23.     Sued: She was sued by her ex-husband in Family Court for a reduction in child support and alimony payments. They reached an agreement and settled the lawsuit.

24.     She has been the subject of a complaint to the Judicial Grievance Board. This was filed by a litigant who appeared before her. It is currently pending. The litigant filed the complaint while he was in the State Hospital.

25.     Health is excellent.

26.     She was incapacited from work for approximately four (4) weeks when she delivered her first child in 1978. She was on maternity leave for six (6) weeks in January and February of 1987.

32.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Legal Issues Advisory Board; S.C. Protection and Advocacy System for the Handicapped; Advisory Board of Animal Protection League; Sierra Club; National Audubon Society.

34.     Five letters of reference:

(a)     O. Stanley Smith

Standard Federal Savings & Loan Assn.

1339 Main Street, Columbia, SC

(b)     John Dean Montgomery

USC Law School, Columbia, SC

(c)     Kermit King, Esquire

P.O. Box 7667, Columbia, SC

(d)     President Robert Coleman

Converse College, Spartanburg, SC

(e)     Timothy Quinn, Esquire

P.O. Box 11880, Columbia, SC

Q     I BELIEVE WE LAST SCREENED YOU IN MARCH OF 1985?

A     I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.

Q     AND THE TERM WHICH YOU SEEK EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1988. JUDGE BRISTOW IS RESIGNING, SO THE TERM WOULD BEGIN JULY 1ST OF '88?

A     I THINK THAT IS CORRECT.

Q     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE ADVISED US THAT NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS STATE THEY HAVE NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. I DO NOTE THERE WAS A COMPLAINT AT ONE TIME AGAINST YOU AND ANOTHER JUDGE AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RULED THAT IT WAS A LEGAL MATTER AND BEYOND THEIR JURISDICTION?

A     THAT'S CORRECT.

Q     YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS CLEAR. THE RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE HAS BEEN CONTACTED AND THEY REPORT THEIR RECORDS SECTIONS ARE NEGATIVE ON YOU. THE COLUMBIA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN CONTACTED AND THEY INDICATE THEIR RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN RICHLAND COUNTY?

A     WELL, I WAS IN LAW SCHOOL FROM '73 TO '76. I LIVED IN TEXAS FOR ONE YEAR, AND OTHER THAN THAT I HAVE BEEN IN RICHLAND COUNTY. I CAME BACK FROM TEXAS IN '77. I HAVE BEEN BACK FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS IN RICHLAND COUNTY.

Q     THE RICHLAND COUNTY CLERK OF COURT'S OFFICE INDICATES THERE ARE NO JUDGMENTS AGAINST YOU THERE AND YOUR FINGERPRINT CARD WAS RETURNED CLEAR. I SEE YOU DO INDICATE HERE THAT YOU WERE CITED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE FOR FAILING TO HAVE ON A LIFE JACKET.

SENATOR SMITH: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE? I MIGHT STATE AS A PROCEDURAL MATTER WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE TO DO, THERE ARE TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE PERIOD OF TIME FILED WITH THIS COMMITTEE TESTIMONY, AND WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE TO DO AFTER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME OF JUDGE CONNOR THAT WE HEAR FROM THOSE INDIVIDUALS AND GIVE JUDGE CONNOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND AFTERWARDS. AT ALL TIMES SHE OR THE COMPLAINANTS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO QUESTIONS BY THIS COMMITTEE. ANY OBJECTION TO THAT PROCEDURE? ARE THERE QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE AT THIS TIME?

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     THE QUESTION I HAVE GOT WOULD BE, JUDGE, YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE DEMEANOR OF A JUDGE SHOULD BE IN THE COURTROOM, GIVE ME YOUR THINKING.

A     WELL, I HAVE BEEN A FAMILY COURT JUDGE FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS AND I HAVE CERTAINLY TRIED TO DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME BE COURTEOUS TO ATTORNEYS. CERTAINLY THERE HAVE BEEN ATTORNEYS THAT HAVE BEEN LATE TO COURT, WHO HAVE MAYBE ACTED IN COURT IN A WAY THAT I THOUGHT WAS IMPROPER AND I HAVE TRIED AT THAT POINT TO TALK TO THEM AFTER THE CASE, OR IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DISRUPTING THE CASE AT THAT TIME, TO CALL THEM INTO MY OFFICE AND TALK TO THEM IN MY OFFICE ABOUT WHAT I FELT THEY WERE DOING THAT WAS DISRUPTIVE TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND SUGGEST A DIFFERENT WAY OF HANDLING THINGS, BUT I HAVE CERTAINLY TRIED AT ALL TIMES TO BE COURTEOUS TO LITIGANTS, TO BE COURTEOUS TO ATTORNEYS, TO KEEP AN AURA OF FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE ABOUT THE COURTROOM AND NOT MAKE JOKES, NOT BE DISCOURTEOUS AT ALL TO ANYBODY. IF THERE ARE ANY SPECIFICS YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, I WOULD BE GLAD TO ANSWER.

SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR SMITH:

Q     ALSO I THINK I FAILED, JUDGE, TO MENTION YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS INDICATES NO COMPETING OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS OTHER THAN YOUR SALARY AS A FAMILY COURT JUDGE.

A     SENATOR, AFTER THE TIME I THINK THAT THE RICHLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION MET AND HAD ITS ANNUAL MEETING SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIME OF SUBMITTING THE DATA FOR SCREENING AND I DID RECEIVE AN ENDORSEMENT FROM THE BAR ASSOCIATION. I HAVE A RESOLUTION AND I HAVE MADE COPIES FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE TO THE COMMITTEE AT THIS TIME.

Q     I WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO HAVE IT. JUDGE, ONE QUESTION I DID HAVE, YOU HAVE INDICATED IN YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE THAT YOU WERE THE SUBJECT OF A COMPLAINT TO THE JUDICIAL GRIEVANCE BOARD FILED BY A LITIGANT WHO APPEARED BEFORE YOU AND IT IS CURRENTLY PENDING. THE LITIGANT FILED A COMPLAINT WHILE HE WAS IN THE STATE HOSPITAL, IS THIS THE SAME COMPLAINT I HAD REFERENCE TO EARLIER?

A     THAT IS THE SAME COMPLAINT. SUBSEQUENT WHEN I FILLED OUT THE APPLICATION, THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE HAD NOT RULED BECAUSE IT WAS A RECENTLY FILED COMPLAINT THAT THE LITIGANT HAD FILED WHILE HE WAS IN THE STATE HOSPITAL CONCERNING I THINK IT WAS A CONTEMPT MATTER THAT WAS BEFORE ME. AFTER SUBMITTED MY MATERIALS I HAVE GOT A LETTER FROM THE BOARD OF GRIEVANCES SAYING THE MATTER HAD BEEN DISMISSED AND I THEN SENT THAT INTO THE COMMITTEE. I THINK IT'S BEEN MADE A PART OF THE PACKAGE NOW SAYING THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN DISMISSED.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS:

Q     JUDGE CONNOR, YOU WERE ONE OF THE FIRST LADY JUDGES IN SOUTH CAROLINA, HAVE YOU HAD ANY DIFFICULTY IN PERFORMING YOUR DUTIES AS A FAMILY COURT JUDGE OR TRAVELING ABOUT AS A SPECIAL CIRCUIT JUDGE AS A FEMALE?

A     A REPORTER FROM MY HOMETOWN CALLED AND SORT OF ASKED ME THAT SAME QUESTION AND I SAID I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH I THINK WHEN I GREW UP IN KINGSTREE I HAD TWO YOUNGER SISTERS RIGHT CLOSE BEHIND AFTER I WAS BORN, SO I WAS SORT OF RELEGATED TO MY DADDY AND I WAS ALWAYS SORT OF A DADDY'S GIRL AND WENT ON DEER DRIVES AND I WAS THE ONLY GIRL WHO WENT ON DEER DRIVES AND I WAS HIS FISHING BUDDY AND HIS GOLF CADDY AND I THINK IT SORT OF MADE ME USED TO BEING THE ONLY FEMALE IN A GROUP OF MEN, AND I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK MY BEING A FEMALE HAS PREJUDICED IN ANY WAY MY JUDGMENTS ON THE BENCH IN TERMS OF BEING BIASED OR PREJUDICED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. IN TERMS OF THE FAMILY, BALANCING A FAMILY AND A JOB, I AM REAL LUCKY TO HAVE PARENTS WHO--BOTH OF MY CHILDREN ARE ONLY GRANDCHILDREN AND WE MORE TIMES THAN I CAN COUNT, WE MEET IN SUMTER HALFWAY BETWEEN HERE AND KINGSTREE SO THEY CAN TAKE THE CHILDREN, AND THE TIMES I HAVE HAD TO GO OUT OF CIRCUIT WHILE THE BABY HAS BEEN YOUNG, HE HAS USUALLY STAYED IN KINGSTREE WITH MY PARENTS OR MY MOTHER COMES TO COLUMBIA AND KEEPS HIM, AND ALSO I AM LUCKY ENOUGH TO HAVE A REAL SUPPORTIVE HUSBAND WHO PITCHES IN REAL WELL, SO I THINK THINGS HAVE WORKED OUT FINE. I DON'T FIND IT TO BE A HANDICAP AT ALL.

Q     YOU WOULD HAVE NO DIFFICULTY IN FULFILLING THE TRAVEL REQUIREMENTS OF A CIRCUIT JUDGE?

A     I HAVE CERTAINLY HAD TO TRAVEL ON THE FAMILY COURT BENCH. WE TRAVEL AN AVERAGE OF ONE WEEK A MONTH OUT OF CIRCUIT AND THAT WOULD NOT INCLUDE THE TIME THAT I HAD TO GO TO CAMDEN ALSO, SO I THINK IT'S REAL FORTUNATE THAT I AM LOCATED IN COLUMBIA BECAUSE IT'S MADE IT EASY THAT I CAN COMMUTE TO A LOT OF LOCATIONS IN THE STATE BECAUSE COLUMBIA IS SUCH A CENTRAL LOCATION, BUT THEN WHEN I HAVE TO STAY OVERNIGHT, I USUALLY HAVE A PRETTY EASY TIME MAKING CHILDCARE ACCOMMODATIONS AND I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE A PROBLEM AT ALL.

SENATOR SMITH: MR. ROGERS ASKED YOU ABOUT THE CIRCUIT COURT, HAVE YOU HELD ANY COURT AS A SPECIAL CIRCUIT JUDGE?

A     YES, SIR. I HAVE HELD TWO TERMS OF NON-JURY COURT IN CHARLESTON AND ONE TERM IN LEXINGTON COUNTY.

SENATOR SMITH: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? (NO RESPONSE.) THANK YOU, JUDGE. IF YOU WILL HAVE A SEAT, WE WILL GET BACK TO YOU SHORTLY. H. RAY HAM HAS FILED A STATEMENT WITH THE COMMITTEE. MR. HAM, WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR HAND, PLEASE, TO TAKE THE OATH.

(H. RAY HAM WAS DULY SWORN BY SENATOR SMITH.)

MR. HAM: MAY IT PLEASE THE COMMITTEE, I COULD ONLY TESTIFY AND MAYBE BRING UNDUE PUBLICITY TO THE CLIENT THAT I REPRESENTED IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, SO, THEREFORE, I CHOOSE NOT TO TESTIFY REGARDING THE PARTICULAR CASE IN WHICH I INFORMED THE COMMITTEE I WAS GOING TO TESTIFY. I JUST DON'T SEE HOW I CAN PROTECT HIS INTEREST AND TESTIFY.

SENATOR SMITH: ANY QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE? (NO RESPONSE.) THANK YOU.

MR. HAM: THANK YOU, SIR.

SENATOR SMITH: ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL BY THE NAME OF CEPHAS JENNINGS FILED WITH THE COMMITTEE A WRITTEN STATEMENT IN LETTER FORM. IS MR. JENNINGS HERE? IF WE WERE IN COURT, I WOULD SAY "SEND THE BAILIFF TO THE WINDOW TO SAY CEPHAS JENNINGS THREE TIMES," IS THAT HOW YOU DO IT? IS MR. JENNINGS IN THE ROOM? (NO RESPONSE.) HE WAS NOTIFIED. HIS STATEMENT WAS MAILED TO MY OFFICE THE MORNING OF THE DEADLINE AND RECEIVED. WHAT IS THE WILL OF THE COMMITTEE? THE STATUTE SAYS ALL DOCUMENTS HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED UNDER OATH NO LATER THAN 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE JOINT COMMITTEE WHO SHALL DETERMINE THE PERSONS WHO SHALL TESTIFY AT THE HEARING.

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: I MOVE THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED.

SENATOR SMITH: YOU HAVE HEARD THE MOTION. ANY DISCUSSION?

REPRESENTATIVE ARTHUR: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION. THERE WAS SOME MENTION OF THE PATIENT IN THE STATE HOSPITAL, IS THIS THE SAME ONE?

SENATOR SMITH: I DO NOT KNOW. THIS IS NOT THE SAME ONE. I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS THE SAME ONE, IS IT, JUDGE?

JUDGE CONNOR: NO, SIR. HE IS AN INMATE IN THE RICHLAND COUNTY DETENTION CENTER AND I THINK HE IS STILL IN THE DETENTION CENTER. I THINK HE IS UNDER A SENTENCE OF MINE AND OF JUDGE CAMPBELL'S FOR A CONTEMPT SENTENCE FOR FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, SO UNLESS HE GOT THE JAIL TO BRING HIM DOWN HERE TODAY, I DON'T THINK--HE IS ACTUALLY SERVING A SENTENCE AT THIS TIME. I HAVE THE FILE WITH ME AND I WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. ALSO MS. MCRACKAN, WHO IS THE ATTORNEY THAT REPRESENTED HIS WIFE IN THAT MATTER, IS HERE IN THE COURTROOM IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MATTER.

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: SHOULD WE JUST RECEIVE THIS AS INFORMATION AND THINK OF ANY FUTURE RAMIFICATIONS BECAUSE OF HIS SITUATION OF BEING INCARCERATED?

SENATOR SMITH: IF WE RECEIVE IT AS INFORMATION, WOULD YOU PROPOSE THAT WE HAVE IT READ SO IT WOULD BE A PART OF THE RECORD? OTHERWISE, IT WILL NOT BE A PART OF THE RECORD OTHER THAN OUR COLLOQUY HERE BECAUSE UNDER THE STATUTE ALL THE DOCUMENTS ARE DESTROYED.

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS MY FIRST YEAR ON THIS COMMITTEE. WHAT HAS BEEN THE PROCEDURE IN THE PAST, SENATOR?

SENATOR SMITH: I AM NOT SURE IT HAS EVER COME UP, HAS IT, MR. ARTHUR? DO YOU RECALL THIS HAPPENING BEFORE?

REPRESENTATIVE ARTHUR: I FEEL LIKE IN THAT THIS PERSON IS NOT PRESENT AND NO ONE IN HIS BEHALF AND ANYONE THAT WE CAN QUESTION, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD RECEIVE IT AS INFORMATION.

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: IN THAT CASE, I RENEW MY MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.

SENATOR SMITH: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

REPRESENTATIVE MCEACHIN: IF THE FELLOW IS IN JAIL, SHOULDN'T WE MAYBE CONTACT THE JAIL TO SEE IF HE WAS OFFERED THE RIGHT TO BE BROUGHT DOWN HERE TO TESTIFY IF HE WANTS TO TESTIFY? NOBODY HAS TRIED TO GET HIM OUT OF JAIL TO COME, THAT BOTHERS ME A LITTLE BIT.

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: I DO HAVE SOME RESERVATIONS BECAUSE OF HIS BEING INCARCERATED. HOW WAS HE NOTIFIED?

SENATOR SMITH: HE RECEIVED OBVIOUSLY A PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS PUBLISHED AND MAILED THIS IN. IT CAME IN TUESDAY MORNING IN TUESDAY MORNING'S MAIL AND WE HAVE HAD NO OTHER CONTACT WITH HIM. I THINK WHAT MR. MCEACHIN IS SUGGESTING IS THAT WE--

REPRESENTATIVE MCEACHIN: CALL THE JAIL AND GET HIM DOWN HERE.

SENATOR SMITH: I WOULDN'T PROPOSE WE STOP THE HEARING BUT JUST STOP ON JUDGE CONNOR AND SEE IF WE CAN LOCATE HIM.

SENATOR LOURIE: I KIND OF LIKE THE IDEA OF RECEIVING IT AS INFORMATION AND READING IT INTO THE RECORD AND NOTIFY HIM THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED IT. IF HE WANTS TO BE HEARD LATER ON, LET HIM BE HEARD.

SENATOR SMITH: THE ONLY THING HE COULD DO WOULD BE TO READ HIS STATEMENT IF HE WERE HERE.

SENATOR LOURIE: I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE MOST EXPEDITIOUS WAY TO HANDLE IT.

REPRESENTATIVE MCEACHIN: IT DOESN'T GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK HIM QUESTIONS.

SENATOR LOURIE: I AGREE WITH YOU BUT THE COMMITTEE CAN RESERVE THEIR RIGHTS TO HAVE HIM INTERVIEWED.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THIS COMMITTEE IS AT THIS TIME ALSO BEING TESTED AND I THINK WE HAVE A DUTY TO MAKE A THOROUGH COMPLETE INVESTIGATION OF EVERY ALLEGATION, AND IF AN INDIVIDUAL IS UNABLE TO ATTEND BECAUSE HE IS IN THE STATE HOSPITAL OR IN JAIL, I THINK WE HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITY THERE TOO. WE CERTAINLY HAVE THE POWER TO HAVE THAT PERSON BROUGHT FORWARD, AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE DO SO.

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: I WITHDRAW MY MOTION. I AGREE.

SENATOR SMITH: IS THERE OBJECTION IF I ASK THE STAFF TO CONTACT THE JAIL--RICHLAND COUNTY DETENTION CENTER?

JUDGE CONNOR: I BELIEVE THAT IS WHERE HE IS, YES, SIR.

SENATOR SMITH: IS THERE ANY OBJECTION IF WE DO THAT AND DETERMINE WHAT HIS PREFERENCE IS?

REPRESENTATIVE ARTHUR: MR. CHAIRMAN, MY COMMENTS ON THE MATTER WERE PURELY FOR THE RAISING--WE NEED TO HAVE HIM HERE. I CONCUR WITH THAT.

SENATOR SMITH: WE WILL GET A REPORT BACK AS SOON AS WE CAN. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION IF WE PROCEED THEN TO GO FORWARD WITH MR. COOPER'S PRESENTATION AND EXAMINATION?

SENATOR MCCONNELL: JUST ONE QUESTION, I AGREE ALSO THAT THIS ENTIRE PROCESS IS BEING LOOKED AT AND I HEARD MR. HAM'S COMMENTS AND THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO KNOW IS WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS HERE TO TESTIFY BUT DIDN'T WANT TO TESTIFY IN OPEN SESSION OR NOT, AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE IN A POSITION TO RECEIVE IT. IF SOMEONE'S PRIVACY WOULD BE UNREASONABLY INVADED, WOULD IT BE A PROPER FUNCTION OF THIS COMMITTEE TO GO BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF THE CITIZEN, AND I GUESS I AM ASKING IF WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY INDICATION THAT HE WANTED TO TESTIFY OR NOT TO THIS COMMITTEE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR HIM.

SENATOR SMITH: GOOD POINT. LET ME RESPOND TO THAT BY SAYING THAT THE STATUTE SAYS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION THE JOINT COMMITTEE MAY SCHEDULE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT WHICH EACH CANDIDATE OR OTHER PERSONS WHOM THE COMMITTEE WISHES TO INTERVIEW MAY BE INTERVIEWED BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON MATTERS PERTINENT TO THE CANDIDATE'S QUALIFICATIONS. WE CAN USE THAT PROCEDURE UNDER THE STATUTE IF WE WISH. MR. HAM, DO YOU HAVE A RESPONSE TO THAT? I CAN UNDERSTAND YOUR PREDICAMENT.

MR. HAM: REGARDING THIS CASE THAT I WANTED TO TESTIFY ABOUT, I CANNOT TESTIFY IN PUBLIC AND GIVE MY CLIENT THAT SORT--FOR HIM TO HAVE TO RELIVE THIS FIVE-YEAR-OLD CASE AGAIN.

SENATOR SMITH: WOULD YOU LIKE TO TESTIFY IN PRIVATE?

MR. HAM: I WOULD BE WILLING TO TESTIFY IN PRIVATE, YES, SIR. ALL I HAVE TO DO IS TESTIFY ABOUT ONE PARTICULAR CASE, THAT IS ALL I HAVE.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: I MOVE THIS COMMITTEE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION RETAINING BOTH CANDIDATES AND COUNSEL IF THEY SO DESIRE, AND TAKE THE TESTIMONY OF MR. HAM.

SENATOR SMITH: IS THERE OBJECTION FROM THE COMMITTEE? CHAIR HEARS NONE. AS MR. BLATT USED TO SAY "WOULD YOU EXCUSE THE HALL." WE WOULD ASK MR. HAM AND JUDGE CONNOR AND THEIR SECONDS, OR ATTORNEYS, OR WHATEVER, IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO REMAIN. I THINK MR. COOPER IS ENTITLED TO STAY I WOULD THINK.

MR. COOPER: I WILL SAVE THE COMMITTEE THAT DECISION AND LEAVE.

JUDGE CONNOR: MS. FURR IS THE ATTORNEY WHO WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT CASE AND I ASKED HER TO BE HERE IN CASE THERE ARE ANY LEGAL ISSUES THE COMMITTEE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT.

SENATOR SMITH: ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? (NO RESPONSE.) COUNSEL MAKES THE POINT THAT ACTUALLY IT IS WHAT MR. HAM AGREES TO REALLY SINCE WE ARE DOING THIS FOR HIM AND JUDGE CONNOR. DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION IF MS. FURR STAYS?

MR. HAM: OF COURSE NOT, NO, SIR, I HAVE NO OBJECTION. I JUST DON'T WANT THIS CLIENT'S NAME TO BE BANDIED ABOUT IN THE NEWSPAPERS.

(OFF THE RECORD.)

(COMMITTEE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.)

(COMMITTEE RECONVENES IN OPEN SESSION)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE ALL THE PARTIES COMING AND MAKING ALL THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE COMMITTEE.

SENATOR LOURIE: MR. CHAIRMAN, DO YOU WANT TO HEAR HIM IN EXECUTIVE SESSION?

SENATOR SMITH: I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK MR. HAM HAD A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR REQUESTING AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

SENATOR LOURIE: AGAIN WE'VE GOT THE RIGHT TO HEAR HIM IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. YOU NEVER KNOW--

SENATOR SMITH: I THINK ALL THE MAN IS GOING TO DO IS READ HIS STATEMENT AND ANSWER QUESTIONS.

SENATOR LOURIE: WELL, YOU NEVER KNOW. WHAT DOES THE SENATOR FROM FAIRFIELD SAY, HE HAS GREAT WISDOM AND PRUDENCE?

SENATOR MARTIN: IF THE WITNESS HAS ANY LEGITIMATE REASON FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION, YOU MAY GO INTO IT. I THINK WE OUGHT TO HEAR HIM UNLESS HE HAS SOME LEGITIMATE REASON FOR WANTING AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

SENATOR LOURIE: YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT PEOPLE WILL COME OFF THE WALL WITH SOMETIMES.

(SHORT RECESS.)

SENATOR SMITH: WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. MR. JENNINGS, IF YOU WOULD COME FORWARD, PLEASE, SIR. WE APOLOGIZE IF WE INCONVENIENCED YOU. IF YOU WOULD, STAND THERE AT THE ROSTRUM. YOU FILED A LETTER, A WRITTEN STATEMENT, WITH THIS COMMITTEE, AND IN AN EFFORT TO DETERMINE IF YOU WISH TO PROCEED WITH IT OR READ IT OVER, WE NEEDED TO GET YOU HERE, SO WE SENT FOR YOU.

MR. JENNINGS: YES, SIR.

SENATOR SMITH: AND WOULD YOU STILL LIKE TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT COMPLAINT?

MR. JENNINGS: YES, SIR, I WOULD.

SENATOR SMITH: DO YOU NEED A COPY OF IT? DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF IT?

MR. JENNINGS: NO, I DON'T HAVE A COPY WITH ME.

SENATOR SMITH: I BELIEVE WE HAVE YOUR ORIGINAL HERE. I WOULD ASK YOU IF YOU WOULD RAISE YOUR HAND AND TAKE THE OATH.

(CEPHAS JENNINGS WAS DULY SWORN BY SENATOR SMITH.)

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR SMITH:

Q     IF WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ THAT.

A     IF THAT IS THE WAY YOU START OUT, SIR.

Q     YES. I THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

A     OKAY.

Q     OR WOULD YOU LIKE FOR SOMEONE TO READ IT FOR YOU?

A     THAT MIGHT BE BETTER.

SENATOR SMITH: I WILL ASK MR. COUICK.

MR. COUICK: THE CORRESPONDENCE IS DATED DECEMBER 4, 1987, ADDRESSED TO SENATOR THOMAS E. SMITH, SCREENING COMMITTEE, POST OFFICE BOX 142, COLUMBIA, 29202. "DEAR SIR: THIS LETTER IS ADDRESSED TO THE SCREENING COMMITTEE IN REGARD TO THE APPOINTMENT OF THE JUDGESHIP FOR CAROL CONNOR. HAVING KNOWN MS. CAROL CONNOR FROM MY DEALINGS THROUGH THE FAMILY COURTS, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT SEVERAL THINGS WHICH HAS INVOLVED MYSELF AND JUDGE CONNOR WHICH I FEEL SHOULD AFFECT THE APPOINTMENT OF HER TO THIS NEW POSITION. ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS OF GOING BEFORE JUDGE CONNOR, I FEEL SHE HAS USED HER POSITION TO PERSONALLY DO THINGS SUCH AS SLANDERING ME. SHE HAS ALLOWED HER FRIEND AND LOCAL ATTORNEY, DEENA SMITH MCRACKAN, TO BRING ILLEGAL AND UNETHICAL PRACTICES AGAINST ME WHEN IN COURT. ALL OF WHICH I HAVE SHOWN HER MY PROOF AND EVEN GAVE HER WRITTEN NOTES, YET SHE REFUSES TO HAVE IT STOPPED. I FEEL JUDGE CONNOR AND MS. DEENA SMITH MCRACKAN HAVE GOTTEN TOGETHER AND DONE THESE THINGS TO ME FOR PERSONAL REASONS ONLY. I HAVE BEEN THREATENED BY MS. MCRACKAN SEVERAL TIMES, ONCE FOR MONEY AND ONCE, THIS WAS THE LAST TIME, USING MS. CAROL CONNOR'S NAME IN HER POSITION SAYING SHE AND MS. CONNOR HAD TALKED AND DECIDED WHAT THEY WOULD DO TO ME PRIOR TO ANY LEGAL COURT HEARING. I BROUGHT THIS TO JUDGE CONNOR'S ATTENTION BUT SHE REFUSES TO EVEN DENY THAT IT'S NOT TRUE. I HAVE HAD TO CONTACT SEVERAL LOCAL OFFICIALS IN ORDER TO RECEIVE HELP ON THIS. I HAVE ALSO BEEN FORCED TO TAKE THEM BEFORE THE PROPER COMMITTEE AND WILL CONTINUE DOING SO UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH BY OUR LAWS. RECENTLY I FILED A LAWSUIT WHICH INVOLVED JUDGE CONNOR IN ORDER TO STOP THESE CORRUPT ACTS AND ARE USED WHEN THEY WANT. I FEEL THERE IS CORRUPTION HERE IN OUR COURTS"--I CANNOT DECIPHER-

SENATOR SMITH: IN THAT THIS--

MR. COUICK: "WAS CORRUPTION AT ITS WORST. I NEVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG BEFORE HAVING GONE IN FRONT OF THIS PERSON AND HAVE SINCE BEEN BRANDED BY HER AND HER COURT BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO DO ME PERSONAL HARM, NOT BECAUSE IT HAD MERIT OR WAS JUSTICE. I REALIZE YOU BEING A SENATOR, MIGHT KNOW MS. CONNOR AND MIGHT EVEN THINK I AM JUST UPSET OR MAD AT HER BUT IT WOULDN'T BE THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER AT ALL. IS IT WORTH HAVING SOMEONE WHO MIGHT BE INVOLVED IN CORRUPTION IN OUR COURT JUST SO SHE CAN BE THE STATE'S FIRST FEMALE JUDGE FOR THIS POSITION. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CHECK ON THE STATEMENTS, IF YOU NEED ANY PROOF OR HELP, I AM MORE THAN WILLING TO HELP YOU. THANKS, CEPHAS JENNINGS, POST OFFICE BOX 7704, COLUMBIA 29202." SWORN TO AND ATTESTED BY A NOTARY.

Q     I BELIEVE YOU SENT COPIES OF THAT TO THE STATE AND RECORD NEWSPAPER?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     IS THAT YOUR STATEMENT?

A     YES, SIR, IT IS.

SENATOR SMITH: ANY QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE MCEACHIN:

Q     MR. JENNINGS, WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS THE CORRUPTION YOU MENTION IN YOUR STATEMENT THAT WAS JUST READ?

A     I FEEL THAT WHEN MORE THAN ONE PERSON GETS TOGETHER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A PERSON OR A SITUATION, THAT WOULD BE CORRUPTION IN OUR GOVERNMENT SINCE THAT IS WHERE IT ORIGINATED.

Q     WHO ARE THE PEOPLE THAT GOT TOGETHER?

A     THE ATTORNEY, DEENA SMITH MCRACKAN, AND JUDGE CONNOR.

Q     WHERE DID THIS TAKE PLACE?

A     I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE IT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM. I WAS THREATENED BY MS. MCRACKAN SEVERAL TIMES, ONCE USING MS. CONNOR'S NAME, AND I HAVE BEEN SLANDERED IN COURT BY MS. CONNOR, WHICH THERE IS AN ATTORNEY WHO SAID HE WOULD TESTIFY TO THAT IF NECESSARY.

Q     WERE YOU REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY WHEN YOU WERE BEFORE JUDGE CONNOR?

A     ONE TIME.

Q     WERE YOU REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY WHEN THE THINGS YOU SAY SHOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN PLACE TOOK PLACE?

A     NO, I WASN'T. I EXPRESSED MY DESIRE FOR AN ATTORNEY, I DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY OR ABLE TO GO THROUGH ANY OF THE LOCAL PLACES WHERE YOU CAN GET AN ATTORNEY WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE MONEY. MS. CONNOR MADE A STATEMENT, IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS AND VERBALLY WHEN WE WAS IN COURT, THAT I HAD MONEY AND COULD AFFORD IT AND, THEREFORE, I HAD TO BE MY OWN ATTORNEY.

Q     ARE YOU UNDER A CURRENT SUPPORT OBLIGATION?

A     YES, I AM, BUT I AM NOT BEHIND, OR WASN'T BEHIND WHEN I WENT TO COURT.

Q     WHAT WERE YOU DOING IN COURT?

A     MY WIFE AND HER ATTORNEY, MS. MCRACKAN, SEEMED TO TAKE ME TO COURT EVERY TIME SHE OR THEY WANT TO HARASS ME OR ASK FOR EXTRA MONEY.

Q     AND YOU ARE PRESENTLY IN THE RICHLAND COUNTY JAIL?

A     YES.

Q     WHAT ARE YOU THERE FOR?

A     CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR FAILING TO SHOW UP IN COURT, WHICH I WROTE THE COURTS AND SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE ASKING FOR HELP, THE BAR ASSOCIATION, ASKING FOR A LAWYER SO I WOULD HAVE SOMEBODY TO DEFEND ME THERE BECAUSE OF THESE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN COURT. I WAS DENIED THAT FROM SEVERAL LOCAL ATTORNEYS AND THE BAR ASSOCIATION AND THE OTHER PEOPLE I GOT IN TOUCH WITH AND I WASN'T GOING TO SHOW UP AGAIN JUST TO BE THROWN IN JAIL. EITHER WAY I WENT, I WOULD HAVE PROBABLY GOT THROWN IN JAIL JUST BECAUSE THEY WANTED IT, BUT I DIDN'T HAVE AN ATTORNEY. I COULDN'T AFFORD AN ATTORNEY AND THE COURTS DON'T SET UP A SYSTEM FOR YOU TO GET AN ATTORNEY WITH FAMILY COURTS EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN GET MORE TIME IN FAMILY COURT THAN YOU CAN FOR GOING OUT AND ROBBING A PERSON.

Q     WHAT IS THE SLANDER THAT YOU SAY OCCURRED?

A     SHE ACCUSED ME THE FIRST TIME I WENT BEFORE HER AND MY ATTORNEY WAS PRESENT, SHE GOT REAL UPSET BECAUSE I WENT THROUGH GOVERNOR CAMPBELL AND LT. GOVERNOR THEODORE, AND THEY HAD CALLED HER OFFICE UNDOUBTEDLY AND SHE GOT REAL UPSET AND SHE MADE SOME STATEMENT SAYING "YOU WENT UP THERE AND CALLED THE LT. GOVERNOR AND BROUGHT THEM ON ME," OR SOMETHING AND SHE JUST--I THINK SHE WAS RANTING AND RAVING, MAYBE THAT IS A LITTLE HARSH BUT THAT'S THE WAY I FOUND IT, AND SHE WENT ON TO SAY, YOU KNOW, HOLDING UP THE FILES "YOU HAVE BEEN IN JAIL BEFORE. YOU HAVE BEEN PICKED UP AND THROWN IN JAIL AND BEEN BEFORE A COURT AND HAVEN'T SHOWN UP AT COURT HEARINGS," AND THAT WAS ALL A COMPLETE LIE. I THINK SHE SAID THE THINGS SO IT WOULD BE ON RECORD TRYING TO SHOW THAT I AM A NO GOOD PERSON, FOR THE FUTURE UNDOUBTEDLY.

Q     HAD YOU BEEN IN JAIL PRIOR TO THAT DATE?

A     NO, SIR.

SENATOR MCCONNELL: THAT IS ALL.

SENATOR SMITH: MR. ARTHUR, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ARTHUR:

Q     HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN JAIL?

A     RIGHT NOW I AM GOING ON IN MY SECOND MONTH, SIR, WHICH I HAVE ASKED FOR WORK RELEASE AND THE COURTS HAVE DENIED THAT. I THINK IT'S PERSONAL VINDICTIVENESS BY THEM. I HAVE ASKED SEVERAL SENATORS ON MY BEHALF TO SEE IF LIKE THEY COULDN'T SOMEHOW TALK TO THESE PEOPLE, NOT TO PERSUADE THEM OTHER THAN DOING THEIR JOB, BUT THEY DO LET PEOPLE OUT FOR WORK RELEASE, EVEN THOUGH I FEEL I AM NOT IN THERE FOR SOMETHING I HAVE DONE, IT'S JUST THEM, THEY WON'T ALLOW ME OUT TO TAKE CARE OF MY DEBTS AND TO SUPPORT MY FAMILY. I THINK THEY WANT TO TAKE WHATEVER ELSE I HAVE GOT.

Q     YOU HAVE BEEN IN THAT JAIL FOR THAT LENGTH OF TIME FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT?

A     CONTEMPT OF COURT. THEY GAVE ME 90 DAYS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT EVEN THOUGH I APOLOGIZED TO THE COURT IN WRITING PRIOR AND AFTER, SIR, AND THEY GAVE ME A YEAR FOR SOMETHING THAT IS UNDER APPEAL WITH THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH THE SUPREME COURT TOLD ME THEY COULDN'T LOCK ME UP UNTIL IT'S HEARD BY THEM, BUT THEY WENT AHEAD AND LOCKED ME UP FOR IT, SIR.

Q     AND THIS LETTER THAT YOU HAVE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE WAS WRITTEN WHILE YOU WERE IN JAIL?

A     YES, SIR. I FEEL THAT IF THEY JUST DIDN'T HAVE SOMETHING AGAINST ME PERSONALLY BECAUSE MAYBE I STOOD UP FOR MYSELF AND I HAVEN'T GONE OUT TO CAUSE THEM TROUBLE, I TRIED TO DO WHAT WAS RIGHT AND, UNDOUBTEDLY, THE PEOPLE IN THEIR POSITION DON'T LIKE TO HAVE THEIR TOES STEPPED ON, BUT YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. YOU CAN'T LET THEM RUN YOUR LIFE FOREVER.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY:

Q     ARE YOU PRESENTLY MAKING CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS NOW?

A     SIR, I CAN'T MAKE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS WHILE I AM IN JAIL. THEY WON'T LET ME OUT ON WORK RELEASE. IT WAS A HARD TIME TRYING TO GET TO BE A TRUSTEE OVER THERE BECAUSE THE COURTS LOST MY COURT RECORDS FOR ALMOST 30 DAYS IN WHICH THE DETENTION CENTER TRIED VERY HARD AND FINALLY WERE ABLE TO FIND THEM. I'M NOT SAYING THEY WERE MISPLACED OR TAKEN OR ANYTHING, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME OVERALL THEY DO AS MUCH AS THEY CAN TO CAUSE AS MUCH DISCOMFORT TO ME AS POSSIBLE.

Q     HAVE YOU BEEN PUT IN JAIL FOR NON-PAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT BEFORE?

A     YES, SIR. I WAS ONCE.

Q     BY WHAT JUDGE?

A     THAT WAS JUDGE LANEY, SIR.

Q     WHAT YEAR WAS THAT?

A     THAT WAS LAST YEAR. ME AND MY WIFE RECENTLY GOT SEPARATED. HER AND HER ATTORNEY, DEENA MCRACKAN, THE SAME ATTORNEY HERE, HARASSED ME AT WORK IN WHICH I HAVE STATEMENTS AND PROOF OF THAT AND HAVE TAKEN IT TO COURT BEFORE BUT THE COURTS DIDN'T SEE IT THAT WAY. THEY GOT ME--I GUESS YOU COULD SAY THEY GOT ME FIRED FROM IT. THEY HARASSED ME DAILY AND HARASSED THE COMPANY UNTIL THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO FIRE ME IF I COULDN'T GET THEM TO STOP, AND I COULDN'T GET THEM TO STOP.

Q     HAD JUDGE CONNOR EVER PUT YOU IN JAIL FOR CONTEMPT?

A     NO, SIR.

Q     SHE NEVER HAS?

A     NO, SIR. I'M NOT SURE WHO PUT ME IN JAIL THIS TIME. JUDGE CAMPBELL MADE A STATEMENT THAT IT WAS JUDGE CONNOR. JUDGE CONNOR SAID IT WAS JUDGE CAMPBELL, SO I AM NOT SURE WHICH END IT COMES FROM, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER I GUESS.

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: THANK YOU.

SENATOR SMITH: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     YOU SAID YOU WOULD BE IN JAIL FOR A YEAR ON A CASE THAT IS UNDER APPEAL, WHY WERE YOU SENTENCED FOR A YEAR?

A     MY WIFE AND I WHEN WE GOT SEPARATED, WE DECIDED WE WOULD SPLIT THE COST OF THE MEDICAL BILLS DOWN THE FRONT WITH ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS. THAT WAS HAPPENING, I PAID THE BILLS AS THEY CAME IN, WAS GIVEN TO THE ATTORNEY OR THROUGH MY WIFE. THEY HAVE A WAY OF GETTING UP THERE AND NOT TELLING THE TRUTH ALL THE TIME OR AVOIDING THE TRUTH AND PUTTING ON A GOOD SHOWBOAT CRYING, AS WOMAN MIGHT USE THEIR POSITION, LIKE MY WIFE, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ATTORNEYS AND WHATNOT, AND THEY SAID I DIDN'T PAY IT AND THEY SAID THERE WASN'T MERIT FOR ME--THEY AGREED THAT MONEY I HAD GIVEN TO THEM WOULD TAKE UP FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE CHILD SUPPORT. AT THE TIME IT WAS $20. WHEN IT GOT TO COURT, I UNDERSTAND IT'S UP TO 50-SOMETHING DOLLARS OF WHICH THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO VERIFY OR GIVEN ME-AND I HAVE WRITTEN THE ATTORNEY AND ASKED THEM AND WRITTEN THE COURTS AND ASKED THEM ABOUT THIS, SO I FILED THE APPEAL WITH THE SUPREME COURT, TALKING TO MR. CLYDE DAVIS DOWN THERE. I WAS TOLD BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT THEY COULDN'T TAKE ME TO JAIL FOR NOT PAYING THE CHILD SUPPORT, WHICH IS THE ONLY THING THEY CAN KEEP YOU FOR GOING TO JAIL IF YOU DON'T PAY CHILD SUPPORT. I WAS SAYING THEY WASN'T TELLING THE TRUTH IN COURT AND HAD PROOF OF IT.

Q     THE YEAR'S SENTENCE YOU GOT THEN WAS FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH A PREVIOUS ORDER?

A     ONE OF THEM, SIR, AND THE OTHER WAS CONTEMPT OF COURT, ALL OF WHICH WAS MS. CONNOR'S PREVIOUS ORDERS WHEN SHE HAD ME BEFORE HER. ONE TIME SHE WANTED TO GIVE ME SIX MONTHS AND I HAD ASKED FOR HELP FROM THE GOVERNOR AND LT. GOVERNOR AND THAT SEEMED TO PUT A LITTLE SOMETHING BEHIND IT FOR THE PEOPLE. THIS TIME THEY PUT ME UP FOR A YEAR FOR $20, THAT IS UNDER APPEAL.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS:

Q     MR. JENNINGS, DID THAT ORDER WHICH GAVE YOU THE YEAR PROVIDE UPON PAYMENT OF THE MONEY THAT THE BALANCE OF THE SENTENCE WOULD BE SUSPENDED, IN OTHER WORDS, THAT YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO SERVE THE TIME?

A     YES, SIR. THEY GAVE ME FIVE DAYS IN WHICH THE LETTERS DON'T COME CERTIFIED AND MY WIFE GOES AROUND AND PICKS UP MY MAIL ALMOST DAILY FROM MY HOUSE, WHICH I HAVE TRIED TO HAVE STOPPED BY THE POSTAL SERVICE. I DIDN'T RECEIVE IT UNTIL THE TIME WAS ALMOST UP. I WENT DOWN THERE I THINK IT WAS TWO DAYS BEFORE I THINK AND PUT AN APPEAL IN BECAUSE I AM NOT GOING TO PAY SOMETHING I ALREADY PAID. WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN YOU GET TO THE POINT WHERE YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY ANY MORE? I THINK EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM REALIZES THAT THE FAMILY COURTS TAKE AS MUCH FROM YOU AS POSSIBLE, WHETHER IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN OR BECAUSE THEY RAVE THE POWER TO DO SO.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY:

Q     HOW MANY CHILDREN DO YOU HAVE?

A     I HAVE TWO CHILDREN, AGE 7 AND 8, WHICH I DON'T GET TO SEE BECAUSE THEIR MOTHER WON'T ALLOW IT, AND HER ATTORNEY HAS LIED QUITE A FEW TIMES WHEN I HAVE TRIED TO GO THROUGH HER TO GET VISITATION, SIR.

Q     AND HOW MUCH IS YOUR CHILD SUPPORT?

A     IT'S ALMOST $450 NOW, SIR. THE WAY I FEEL IT'S CLOSE TO 70 PERCENT OF MY PAY EACH MONTH, AND THEY TAKE IT OUT OF WAGE EARNINGS. IT'S NOT LIKE THEY DIDN'T GET IT. MY JOB IS STILL OPEN BUT THEY WON'T LET ME GO TO WORK. MY EMPLOYER HAS WRITTEN THEM TELLING THEM THAT I AM A GOOD WORKER AND THEY WANT ME TO HELP PAY MY BILLS.

Q     WHAT TYPE OF JOB DID YOU HAVE?

A     I WORK FOR AN EXTERMINATING COMPANY, MODERN EXTERMINATING. GEORGE MATTHEWS, SR. IS THE OWNER.

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: THANK YOU.

SENATOR SMITH: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? (NO RESPONSE.) THANK YOU, SIR. I AM GOING TO ASK JUDGE CONNOR IF SHE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORTH AND RESPOND. IF YOU COULD FIND A SEAT.

JUDGE CONNOR: THIS IS MR. JENNINGS' FILE AND JUST SITTING THERE I HAVE NOT GONE BACK THROUGH AND READ ALL THE ORDERS OF PRIOR JUDGES. THESE ARE ALL THE LETTERS HE HAS WRITTEN CONCERNING JUDGE LANEY, JUDGE CAMPBELL, JUDGE MOBLEY, THE ONES I SAW. THERE ARE A COUPLE CONCERNING JUDGE ARRANT'S. I THINK HE HAS THREATENED TO FILE LAWSUITS IN FEDERAL COURT AGAINST THE CLERK OF COURT. I KNOW HE HAS CONTACTED--WRITTEN LETTERS TO GOVERNOR CAMPBELL AND I THINK ALSO THE LT. GOVERNOR, REPRESENTATIVE SPENCE. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AS I CAN RECALL THE LAST CASE I HEARD, AND MR. JENNINGS I THINK HAS BEEN IN JAIL ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS, THE LAST TIME HE WAS IN JAIL I PUT HIM IN JAIL FOR NOT PAYING CHILD SUPPORT. I HAD LET HIM OUT ON WORK RELEASE TO GO TO WORK DURING THE DAY. WHAT I GOT UPSET WITH HIM ABOUT WAS INSTEAD OF GOING TO WORK DURING THE DAY HE WAS GOING OVER TO LT. GOVERNOR NICK THEODORE'S OFFICE AND THEY CALLED ME FROM OVER THERE SAYING HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ON WORK RELEASE AND HE WAS OVER AT THE LT. GOVERNOR'S OFFICE INSTEAD OF OUT WORKING WHERE HE IS SUPPOSED TO BE, AND THAT IS WHY I GOT UPSET AT HIM FOR THE LT. GOVERNOR'S OFFICE CALLING BECAUSE HE WAS TECHNICALLY AN INMATE IN THE COUNTY JAIL WHO I HAD LET OUT TO GO TO WORK DURING THE DAY AND THAT IS ONE REASON HE IS NOT BEING ALLOWED THIS TIME TO BE ON WORK RELEASE.

I THINK HE TOOK THIS INTO JUDGE CAMPBELL'S COURTROOM THE LAST TIME HE WENT, THIS POSTER WHEN HE SAID NOBODY WOULD ANSWER HIS LETTERS BECAUSE HE WRITES ABOUT A LETTER A DAY, BUT WHEN I SENTENCED HIM, I HAD A FULL-BLOWN HEARING. HE WAS NOT UNDER THE ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS OF THE COURT. HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN ATTORNEY BECAUSE HE WAS WORKING. HE HAD A FULL-TIME JOB WITH MODERN EXTERMINATING, SO HE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO HAVE A FREE LAWYER APPOINTED FOR HIM. OTHER TIMES THAT HE HAS COME BEFORE THE COURT HE HAS HAD LAWYERS APPOINTED AT TIMES WHEN HE WAS UNEMPLOYED FOR VARIOUS HEARINGS.

I FOUND THREE OR FOUR BENCH WARRANTS IN THE FILE WHERE HE HAS BEEN ARRESTED BY VARIOUS JUDGES FOR FAILURE TO SHOW UP IN COURT WHEN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO APPEAR IN COURT. THE LAST CASE I HAD I HELD HIM IN CONTEMPT OF COURT, SENTENCED HIM TO ONE YEAR, ALLOWED HIM TO PURGE HIMSELF OF THE CONTEMPT BY PAYING A PORTION OF THE MEDICAL BILL THAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY UNDER AN APRIL OF 1986 ORDER AND ALSO PAY THE ATTORNEY'S FEES HE WAS ORDERED TO PAY BACK IN APRIL OF '86, WHICH HE NEVER HAS PAID, AND I GAVE HIM A CHANCE TO PURGE HIMSELF IF HE WOULD PAY THAT. ACTUALLY, I DIDN'T EVEN LOCK HIM UP AT THE HEARING. I GAVE HIM A CHANCE TO MAKE THOSE PAYMENTS BEFORE HE WENT TO JAIL. HE WAS THEN RULED IN ON CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR NOT MAKING THE PAYMENTS UNDER MY ORDER AND THAT IS WHEN HE DID APPEAR IN FRONT OF JUDGE CAMPBELL AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND JUDGE CAMPBELL SENTENCED HIM TO AN ADDITIONAL THREE MONTHS FOR FAILING TO APPEAR IN COURT, SO I THINK HE IS DOING A YEAR UNDER MY SENTENCE, AND SOMEBODY ASKED THE QUESTION, HE CAN GET OUT IF HE PAYS THE PAYMENT OF THE MEDICAL BILLS, BUT ALSO HE IS DOING I THINK THREE MONTHS FROM JUDGE CAMPBELL FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR IN COURT.

IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I CAN GO THROUGH AND GET SPECIFICS OUT OF THE FILE, BUT IT IS SUCH A VOLUMINOUS FILE. I DON'T KNOW THE ENTIRE CASE HISTORY. I CAN TELL YOU BASICALLY THAT I CERTAINLY HAVE NOT HAD ANY EX PARTE CONVERSATIONS WITH MS. MCRACKAN, WHO IS HERE IN THE CHAMBERS IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM HER. I HAVE NEVER MADE ANY REMARKS IN COURT TO MR. JENNINGS WHEN HE SAID THREATENING REMARKS, AND I HAVE NEVER HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH MS. MCRACKAN CONCERNING THE CASE OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM OR IN MY OFFICE OR ANY OTHER TIME. SHE IS CERTAINLY GLAD TO TESTIFY TO THAT IF THE COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM HER.

SENATOR SMITH: ANY QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?

MR. JENNINGS: IS IT POSSIBLE TO MAKE ONE MORE STATEMENT, SIR?

SENATOR SMITH: YES, BUT MAKE IT BRIEF, SIR.

MR. JENNINGS: I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THERE HAS ONLY BEEN TWO BENCH WARRANTS OUT FOR ME NOT SEVERAL. AS THE DICTIONARY POINTS OUT, "SEVERAL" IS MORE THAN TWO. SHE CAN'T PROVE THIS HERE BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER HAD BENCH WARRANTS OUT EXCEPT FOR TWICE WHEN I HAD GONE TO FAMILY COURT. SHE HAS HAD SOMEBODY UP BEFORE ME AT THIS COMMITTEE TESTIFYING AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ALL--I KNOW A LOT OF YOU STAND TOGETHER AND BEHIND THINGS LIKE THIS AND I DON'T THINK IT'S ALL CUT AND DRIED. I THINK THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET AWAY WITH WHAT THEY HAVE DONE AND ALWAYS WILL.

SENATOR SMITH: THANK YOU, SIR. ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE COMMITTEE?

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR SMITH:

Q     JUDGE CONNOR, HE INDICATES IN HIS STATEMENT THAT RECENTLY HE FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST YOU. YOU DID NOT DISCLOSE THAT. HAVE YOU BEEN SERVED WITH ANY PAPERS?

A     I HAVE NEVER BEEN SERVED WITH ANY PAPERS. I THINK HE HAS WRITTEN LETTERS TO THE CLERK SAYING THAT HE IS GOING TO FILE A LAWSUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURT BUT I HAVE NEVER BEEN SERVED.

Q     DOES THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE CALL YOU FREQUENTLY ABOUT CASES? DID THEY CALL YOU ABOUT THIS?

A     ONLY IN LT. GOVERNOR THEODORE'S CASE. I WAS CALLED BECAUSE HE WAS DRESSED IN INMATE CLOTHES BECAUSE HE WAS ON WORK RELEASE FROM THE JAIL AND I HAD ALLOWED HIM TO GO OUT, WHICH I FREQUENTLY DO IN CASES IS LET PEOPLE GO OUT DURING THE DAY BECAUSE I FEEL WOMEN ARE A LOT BETTER OFF GETTING MONEY FOR CHILD SUPPORT THAN THEY ARE HAVING PEOPLE LOCKED UP, SO I ALLOWED HIM TO BE RELEASED DURING WORKING HOURS BECAUSE HE HAD A JOB DURING THE DAY. THEY CALLED ME BECAUSE INSTEAD OF GOING TO WORK HE WAS UP AT THEIR OFFICE.

SENATOR SMITH: UNLESS THERE IS AN OBJECTION THAT CLOSES ON JUDGE CONNOR. MR. COOPER, WOULD YOU COME FORWARD.

(G. THOMAS COOPER, JR., CANDIDATE FOR JUDGE OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, WAS DULY SWORN BY SENATOR SMITH.)

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR SMITH:

Q     YOU HAVE OF COURSE SUBMITTED TO THIS COMMITTEE YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE AND WE HAVE SUMMARIZED IT FOR THE SAKE OF SAVING PRINTING BY TAKING THE QUESTIONS OUT, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THIS?

A     I HAVE.

Q     HAVE WE SUMMARIZED IT ACCURATELY?

A     YES.

Q     ANYTHING THAT NEEDS CLARIFICATION OR ELABORATION?

A     NOT THAT I KNOW OF.

Q     IS THERE ANY OBJECTION THEN IF WE MAKE THIS SUMMARY AS A PART OF THE RECORD AS YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY?

A     NO OBJECTION.

SENATOR SMITH: IT WILL BE DONE AT THIS POINT IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

1.     G. Thomas Cooper, Jr.

Home Address:     Business Address:

#1 Sycamore Place     2407 N. Broad Street

Camden, SC 29020     P.O. Drawer 99

Camden, SC 29020

2.     He was born in Wilmington, Delaware on November 2, 1940.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married on September 1, 1979 to Hope Howell. He was previously divorced on July 21, 1978 from Patricia D. Cooper in the Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit on the ground of desertion for a period of one (1) year.
He has 3 children: Catherine Sloane, age 20; Sarah Riley, age 18; and Patricia Daily, age 14.

5.     Military Service: None

6.     He attended Clemson University, 1958-1963 (B.S.) and George Washington University, 1963-1966 (LLB).

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

1968-1970, Partner with West, Holland, Furman & Cooper

1971-1974, G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Attorney at Law

1971-1974, Assistant Solicitor, Kershaw County

1974-1976, Associate Probate Judge, Kershaw County

1975-1977, Partner, West, Cooper, Bowen, Beard & Smoot

1977-1984, Partner, Cooper, Bowen, Beard & Smoot

1984-present, Partner, Cooper, Beard & Dibble

9.     Frequency of appearances in court for the past five years:

Federal - Occasional (10%)

State - Frequent (70%)

Other - Arbitration (20%)

10.     Percentage of litigation:

Civil: 85% Domestic: 10% Criminal: 5%

11.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury: 40% Non-Jury: 60%

sole counsel, chief counsel and associate counsel

12.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) Campus Sweater & Sportswear v. M. B. Kahn Construction Co., Fort Roofing & Sheet Metal Works Inc. and Celotex Corp., 515 F.Supp. 64 (1979); Action No. 76-0292-5
He was co-counsel with Terrell L. Glenn and successfully represented the Plaintiff in this case. This was a jury trial in District Court in front of the Honorable Robert Hemphill. At the time of the Plaintiff's jury verdict in February of 1979, the award of $833,000 was reported to be the largest jury verdict obtained in South Carolina up until that time. The case is significant for many reasons in the products liability field and was the first of many cases against Celotex for defective roofing material which was installed on roofs in the Southeastern United States in the late 60's and early 70's. Judge Hemphill's Order of September 28, 1979, denying Defendants' Motions for Judgment N.O.V. and a New Trial is frequently cited.
Judge Hemphill stated in his Order: "The trial was a mammoth and complex event. The transcript of 12 days of testimony runs 2,500 pages, hundreds of exhibits were introduced or identified, and the number of objections raised were more than this court has ever experienced in over 40 years of law practice and service on the bench."

(b) George A. Creed & Son, Inc. v. Trident Technical College Area Commission, Case No. 80-CP-40-1836.
He was chief counsel for the Plaintiff in this unsuccessful action which was ordered to arbitration and involved the construction of a 3.2 million dollar addition to Trident Technical College on its Ashley River site. Judge Bristow ordered arbitration on July 10, 1980 and arbitration under the rules of AAA commenced March 9, 1981. An award in the amount of $562,697 adverse to the Plaintiff was rendered on April 30, 1982 after 41 days of testimony over the course of 12 months. In addition, Plaintiff was ordered to pay subcontractor claims which eventually amounted to approximately $350,000. The case is significant in that it involved many contractors and subcontractors and a building in Charleston which eventually cost the State of South Carolina a significant amount of money. The State of South Carolina expended for the preparation and presentation of its arbitration case in excess of $800,000, none of which was ordered to be reimbursed to the state. As a result of this case, the Attorney General of South Carolina eliminated all compulsory arbitration clauses in state construction contracts.
(c) (Client), Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of (Deceased) v. (Airline), et al.
He was chief counsel for the Plaintiff in a wrongful death commuter airline crash which occurred November 2, 1979. Although this case was never brought to trial, and pleadings were never filed, he feels that it is significant in that the preparations, investigations and settlement negotiations he had with the various potential Defendants in an airline disaster case brought about a substantial settlement quickly and involved perhaps as many hours of preparation as if he had filed and gone to trial. The significance of the case to him is that it demonstrated the effectiveness of thorough trial investigation and preparation.
The settlement for the Plaintiff was $667,500.

(d) School District of Oconee County v. James Robert Lawrence, et al., Case No. 77-CP-37-22.
He was chief counsel for the Defendant architect in this action. This case, known as the "Walhalla Middle School" case, involved structural deficiencies in the construction of the $2.2 million Walhalla Middle School. The architects, contractors and subcontractors were all charged in multiple counts with negligence. The case was eventually settled after the institution of litigation. This case is significant because, for the first time in his experience, the Supreme Court assigned a Special Judge (Spruill) to hear the case over the period of approximately two (2) years. Judge Spruill actually court-ordered revisions and modifications to the structural system of the school with the consent of all Defendants. The case was masterfully handled for the Plaintiff by Lowell Ross, and, after a two-year abandonment of the school for safety reasons, the structural deficiencies were corrected and the school is now occupied and being fully utilized by Oconee County.

(e) Vera Thomas v. South Carolina Employment Security Commission, U.S.D.C. Civil Action No. 75-719.
He was chief counsel for the Employment Security Commission. This was a Title VII sex discrimination case brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C., Section 2005(e). The Plaintiff was represented by Gerald Kaynard of Charleston and the case was settled prior to trial. However, the significance of the case is that, following settlement, the South Carolina Employment Security Commission revised certain policies and procedures to insure that women are given non-discriminatory opportunities for promotion from within the organization.

(f) Beverly H. Barton v. Sumter County School District Two, U.S.D.C. Civil Action No. 77-1973; and Sandra Westmoreland v. Sumter County School District Two, U.S.D.C. Civil Action No. 2009.
He was chief counsel for Plaintiffs in these successful actions for declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, alleging illegal job terminations. Prior to the cases being tried, both parties were reinstituted to their old positions and received full back pay plus attorneys' fees.

(g) The State v. Vaughan Gregory Smith.
This was a murder trial involving the death of Kershaw County Deputy Pat Orr. Defendant Smith was charged by a warrant dated July 2, 1973. The matter came to trial on October 23, 1973. He was lead counsel with Solicitor Foard which resulted in a first degree murder conviction (non-death penalty). The case was significant in that it involved the brutal murder of a popular Kershaw County Deputy and involved several unique evidentiary questions.

13.     List up to five (5) civil appeals which you personally have handled, giving the case, the court, the date of decision and citation, if reported.

(a) Campus Sweater & Sportswear v. M. B. Kahn Construction Co., Fort Roofing & Sheet Metal Works Inc. and Celotex Corp., 515 F.Supp. 64 (1979); Action No. 76-0292-5.

See 12(a) above.

(b) First Baptist Church of Timmonsville, South Carolina v. George A. Creed & Son, Inc., 281 S.E.2d 121.
He was chief counsel for Defendant Creed in this construction-arbitration case. The lower court had denied his client arbitration and it was successfully appealed. It is significant in that it absolutely expresses the Supreme Court's opinion favoring arbitration when arbitration clauses are included in contracts. The case is quoted frequently in arbitration matters.

(c) Ray E. Roberts v. Hermitage Cotton Mills, 8 E.P.D. 9589; U.S.D.C. Civil Action No. 72-1415; Fourth Circuit Appeal No. 73-1600.
He was chief counsel for the Defendant in this employment discrimination action. This case was tried without a jury before the Honorable Sol Blatt, Jr. He successfully defended the Defendant in the trial court and successfully argued the affirmation in the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The significance of this case is that, although the Plaintiff claimed employment discrimination on religious grounds, Judge Blatt and the Fourth Circuit felt that the company was well within its rights to dismiss the employee when his absence from work would have caused serious disruption to the plant's operations.

(d) Shirley E. Mays v. Robert C. Mays, III, 229 S.E.2d 725.
He was chief counsel in this successful domestic action. This case is often cited for the Supreme Court's opinion on attorney's fees in domestic cases and the burden of proof in adultery cases. This case was an unusually difficult case in that the Defendant, an attorney, was charged with physical cruelty and he counterclaimed on the grounds of adultery for which the burden of proof was not sustained.

(e) Stackhouse v. Cook, 248 S.E.2d 482.
He was chief counsel for the Plaintiff in this statute of frauds case involving a parole contract for the conveyance of land. The matter wac tried in Dillon County unsuccessfully and appealed unsuccessfully.

(f) The State v. James Frank Newman, 200 S.E.2d 82.
He was chief counsel as Assistant Solicitor for the state in this aggravated assault and battery case. The appeal of this case was handled directly by him and was successful. Newman, the Defendant, appealed on the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. Upon affirmation by the South Carolina Supreme Court, the Defendant petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari which was denied.

15.     Judicial Office: 1974-1976, Associate Probate Judge for Commitments (appointed).

17.     Unsuccessful Candidate: In 1983 he offered for the Fifth Circuit Judicial seat vacated by Judge Grimball. He withdrew prior to the vote of the Legislature. In 1984 he ran unsuccessfully for the race for State Senate District #27.

19.     Officer or director: He is secretary of East Kirkwood Land Company, Ltd., a private real estate development company. He has no stock or ownership interest in the company and only serves as Secretary as an accommodation to the owner who is frequently out of state.

25.     Health is excellent.

32.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: 1967-1986, Camden Country Club (President, 1975-1978); 1971-present, Director of South Carolina National Bank, Camden; 1974-1978, Chairman of Kershaw County Democratic Party; 1979-1985, President's Statewide Advisory Group, Clemson University; 1982-present, President of Camden High Academic Booster Club; 1982-present, Chairman of Camden-Kershaw County Animal Control Commission.

34.     Five letters of reference:

(a)     Mickey A. Pierce, Vice President/City Executive

South Carolina National Bank

P.O. Box 460, Camden, SC 29020

(b)     Cynthia Hall Ouzts, Attorney at Law

1711 Pickens Street, Columbia, SC 29201

(c)     T. Alexander Beard, Esquire

P.O. Drawer 1240, Columbia, SC 29202

(d)     Charlie E. Nash

State Farm

512 Rutledge Street, Camden, SC 29020

(e)     John C. Carmichael

Wateree Correction Facility

Route 1, Box 132, Rembert, SC 29128

Q     MR. COOPER, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAS INDICATED THAT NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS CLEAR. THE KERSHAW COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE HAS BEEN CONTACTED AND YOUR RECORD IS NEGATIVE THERE. THE CAMDEN CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN CONTACTED, THOSE RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE CRIMINAL RECORDS SECTION OF SLED WAS CHECKED WITH A NEGATIVE RESULT. NO JUDGMENT ROLLS IN THE KERSHAW COUNTY CLERK OF COURT'S OFFICE. HAVE YOU EVER LIVED ANYWHERE ELSE, ANY OTHER COUNTY?

A     NO, I HAVE NOT.

Q     SO ANY COURT RECORDS WOULD BE IN KERSHAW COUNTY?

A     THAT'S CORRECT.

Q     YOUR FINGERPRINT CARD IS CLEAR. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST INDICATES NO CONFLICTING INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR PERSONAL DATA THAT YOU WERE AT ONE TIME ASSISTANT SOLICITOR?

A     THAT'S CORRECT.

Q     YOU ARE NO LONGER?

A     NO, THAT WAS 1970 THROUGH 1974 WHEN SOLICITOR JOHN FOARD WAS SOLICITOR FOR THIS CIRCUIT.

Q     I BELIEVE YOU WERE ASSOCIATE PROBATE JUDGE FOR THE COMMITTAL AFFAIRS. THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INDICATED ON HERE, THAT IS NO LONGER TRUE?

A     NO, SIR, THAT IS NO LONGER TRUE.

Q     YOU HAVE INDICATED IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE, WHICH WE HAVE SUMMARIZED, THAT 5 PERCENT OF THE LITIGATION HAS BEEN CRIMINAL, DO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH THE CRIMINAL LAWS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURES?

A     YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THE QUESTIONNAIRE REFERS TO PRESENT PRACTICE AND AT THE PRESENT TIME I DON'T DO A LOT OF CRIMINAL WORK, HOWEVER, MY BACKGROUND AS AN ASSISTANT SOLICITOR AND IN THE EARLIER DAYS OF MY PRACTICE I DID QUITE A BIT OF CRIMINAL LAW. I THINK KEEPING UP WITH THE OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT, THAT SORT OF THING, THE STATUS OF THE LAW TODAY, WOULD ENABLE ME TO SIT ON CRIMINAL MATTERS, ALTHOUGH I ADMIT TO THE COMMITTEE THAT THE BULK OF MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN IN CIVIL MATTERS.

Q     YOU HAD BEEN SCREENED BY THIS COMMITTEE EARLIER BACK IN '83?

A     THAT'S CORRECT.

SENATOR SMITH: ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     THE QUESTION TO YOU IS BASICALLY THE SAME ONE TO THE PREVIOUS CANDIDATES, YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THE DEMEANOR OF THE JUDGE IN THE COURTROOM OR THE ROLE OF JUDICIAL DEMEANOR, IF YOU COULD GIVE ME YOUR IMPRESSIONS OF THAT?

A     SENATOR MCCONNELL, I THINK CERTAINLY THE PUBLIC AND THE LITIGANTS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT PEOPLE IN THE COURTROOM. I THINK A JUDGE SHOULD CONDUCT HIMSELF LIKE CAESAR'S WIFE, IN THE SENSE ABOVE REPROACH, AND CERTAINLY TRY TO BE FAIR NOT ONLY TO THE LAWYERS BUT ALSO KEEP IN MIND THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC, THE FEELINGS OF THE PUBLIC AND THE LITIGANTS. WE HAVE AN AWFUL LOT OF CROWDING IN COURTROOMS, PEOPLE WAITING. I ON THIS SIDE OF THE BENCH IN PRACTICE OF THE LAW SEE A LOT OF THAT AND I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT UPON THE JUDICIARY TO RESPECT THAT AND TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE THE SCHEDULES OF THE LITIGANTS AND THE PUBLIC AND THE JURORS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, BUT I THINK CERTAINLY THAT THE DECORUM OF A\JUDGE SHOULD BE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE BEYOND REPROACH.

SENATOR SMITH: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? (NO RESPONSE.) THANK YOU, MR. COOPER. THEN THAT WOULD CLOSE OUR PART OF THE HEARING IN CONNECTION WITH THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. LET'S CONVENE BACK HERE AT 11:30 AND I WILL START BACK RIGHT AT 11:30.

SENATOR SMITH: IT'S 11:30. I WILL RECONVENE THE COMMITTEE. AT THIS TIME WE WILL MOVE TO SCREEN CANDIDATES FOR THE VACANCY ON THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT TO SUCCEED THE HONORABLE GEORGE GREGORY. WE HAVE TWO CANDIDATES AND THE FIRST IS JUDGE PEEPLES. JUDGE, COME FORWARD.

(THE HONORABLE RODNEY A. PEEPLES, CANDIDATE FOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, WAS DULY SWORN BY SENATOR SMITH.)

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR SMITH:

Q     JUDGE PEEPLES, YOU HAVE HEARD MY EXPLANATION ABOUT OUR SUMMARY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE. WE DO IT IN THE INTEREST OF TIME AND COST. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW OUR SUMMARY OF THE INFORMATION YOU SUBMITTED?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     IS IT CORRECT?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     ANYTHING THAT NEEDS CLARIFICATION? DID WE LEAVE ANYTHING OUT?

A     NO, SIR.

Q     DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION IF WE MAKE THIS SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD JUST AS IF IT WERE YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY?

A     NO, SIR.

Q     SO IT WOULD BE DONE AT THIS POINT IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

1.     Rodney A. Peeples

Home Address:     Business Address:

116 Fairway Lane     P.O. Box 426

Barnwell, SC 29812     Barnwell, SC 29812

2.     He was born in Hampton County, South Carolina on January 8, 1940.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Claudia Waites on August 12 1962. They have 2 children: Janie Glenn, age 21 and Katie Waites, age 18.

5.     Military Service: N/A

6.     He attended the University of South Carolina from 1958-1961 (received Bachelor of Science in Business Administration) and the University of South Carolina School of Law from 1961-1964 (received Juris Doctor).

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:
(March l, 1964 to December 5, 1974) Partner with law firm of Blatt, Fales and Peeples, Barnwell, South Carolina; (December 5, 1974 to present) Resident Judge, Second Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina.

15.     Judicial Office: Elected Judge of Second Judicial Circuit on February 13, 1974, to fill the unexpired term of Judge J.B. Ness (elected to Supreme Court); qualified December 5, 1974, serving continuously since without opposition.

23.     Sued: In 1977 he sentenced Bobby Arthurs in criminal court to 9 years in jail, and Arthurs brought a pro se action against him alleging that Judge Peeples had called him a "bad guy" in court and sought $3,000,000.00 in damages. The case was dismissed on summary judgment.
About seven years ago a woman named Hiers had pro se sued Judge Peeples and his former law partner, Judge Sol Blatt, Jr., alleging he had certified the number of acres in a tract of land to be more than it actually was. They had only certified the title, not acreage, and the case was dismissed.
On November 15, 1985, Judge Peeples and the other partners in PPS Partners, which own a shopping center in Sumter, South Carolina were sued. At issue was the legal interpretation as to option language "subject to sale of shopping center as a whole." The lease with the option language was entered into in 1963 between prior owners of the shopping center as they purchased the property in 1982. There were no damages sought, nor any allegation of wrongdoing and summary judgment was granted as a matter of law for the defendants.
It has recently come to his attention that he was named as a defendant in four cases that were filed in the U.S. District Court. The cases were brought pro se by defendants in criminal cases who were at the time incarcerated. Each was dismissed without service of process and he was not served and did not receive notice of the cases having been filed. See attached letter of October 27, 1987, from the Clerk of the District Court. Also in 1980 he was named a defendant in a foreclosure action, McPhaul v. Felder, et al., in Barnwell County. The complaint alleged he owned a mortgage that had been paid, which was correct. The Master's Report held that he had never been served and was therefore not a proper party because the mortgage had been satisfied of record.
Subsequent to the death of Pauline Knight on June 11, 1986, in the capacity of the executor of her estate, he was substituted as a party-defendant in a declaratory Judgment action which was on appeal to the S.C. Supreme Court.

24.     Disciplined: None except for several complaints to the South Carolina Judicial Standards Commission by disgruntled and unsuccessful litigants or Defendants sentenced to incarceration in criminal proceedings of which none required any investigation as each were deemed unfounded and summarily dismissed.

25.     Health is excellent. He recently underwent tests for low back pain and received a clean bill of health.

32.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational social, and fraternal organizations: First Baptist Church of Barnwell, Mason at Harmony Lodge #17 AFM, Barnwell Warhorse Club, National Audubon Society, South Carolina Historical Society, The Smithsonian Associates, Sweetwater Country Club, The Summit Club, USC Alumni Association, Clemson University Board of Visitors, Columbia College Parents' Advisory Council

34.     Five letters of reference:

(a)     John J. Sanders

Vice President, C & S National Bank of S.C

P.O. Box 1347, Barnwell, SC 29812

(b)     Honorable Sol Blatt, Jr.

District Judge, United States District Court

Charleston, SC 29402

(c)     Honorable Robert E. McNair

P.O. Box 11390, Columbia, SC 29211

(d)     Honorable Morris D. Rosen

P.O. Box 893, Charleston, SC 29402

(e)     Honorable William Clyburn

P.O. Box 1715, Columbia, SC 29202

Dear Senator Smith:

It is an honor and a pleasure to recommend Judge Rodney Peeples to fill Justice Gregory's seat on the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Judge Peeples is a truly respected individual who is known throughout this state and this section of the country for his fairness, intellect, and unique ability to work hard and effectively as a jurist.

As I travel this state, whenever the subject of the judicial system arises, his name invariably surfaces as "the Judge who gets things done." Because of his outstanding capabilities, he has been asked to serve on various boards and committees by local officials, governors and presidents.
Students, lawyers, elected officials and fellow jurists on numerous occasions have demonstrated their appreciation of Judge Peeples and the contributions he has made to our judicial system.

I join many other South Carolinians in hope and prayer that Judge Peeples will fill the vacancy in the South Carolina Supreme Court.

With kind regards, I remain,

Respectfully yours,
/s/William Clyburn
Commissioner
Workers' Compensation Commission
Dear Senator Smith:

It is with pleasure that I write recommending the election of the Honorable Rodney A. Peeples to the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Judge Peeples has served the Second Judicial Circuit with distinction since having been elected to the bench back in the mid-seventies. Through his "no-nonsense" decorum in his court, he has gained enormous respect both from law enforcement, the legal community and our society as a whole.

Judge Peeples continues to be active in our community, assisting unselfishly, in providing recreational and social events to the youth of our community who would be unable to enjoy these activities without his efforts. Through his efforts, several youth in our community have been able to obtain a college education that will greatly improve their life styles. They would not have been able to do so without his assistance.

Over the past sixteen years that I have known Judge Peeples, I have found him to be both honest and forthright in all of his dealings, and I can think of no one I could recommend more highly for the position of Supreme Court Justice.

Hoping this letter will be of some assistance to you in making your recommendation to the General Assembly, I am

Sincerely,
/s/John J. Sanders
Vice President
C&S National Bank of South Carolina

Dear Senator:

It has been my honor to previously recommend Judge Rodney A. Peeples for election and re-election to the Circuit Court. His performance on that bench is well known to all, and I refer you to my letters of endorsement on those occasions.

It is now with great pleasure that I commend Judge Peeples for the vacancy on the South Carolina Supreme Court. My endorsement of Judge Peeples is without qualification. Judge Peeples' many years of dedicated service to the Judiciary, and his work on behalf of our state in numerous special capacities, are well known to us all. He is without peer in his qualifications for the position as a Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court. His active participation on local, state and national boards and committees within the legal profession uniquely equips him to serve well South Carolina and its citizens in this most important position of trust and responsibility.

It is without reservation of any kind that recommend Judge Rodney Peeples to you and your committee.

With warmest personal regards, I remain

Sincerely yours,
/s/Robert E. McNair

Dear Tom:

I was talking to Rodney a few days ago, and he told me that the filing for applicants for George Gregory's seat on the Supreme Court will begin on November 5th. I am sure that you and your Committee know of the devotion and respect that I have for Rodney and that I consider him one of South Carolina's finest trial judges, and a person of character, integrity, and honor. I hope it is not out of order for me to write you and your Committee to tell you that I think, if elected, he will become an outstanding and distinguished justice of our highest court.

While I wanted to tell you and your Committee how I personally felt, I particularly want to recall for all of you how my father felt about Rodney. I am confident there is not a person on your Committee, or anyone who served in the General Assembly prior to Daddy's death, to whom he had not spoken in Rodney's behalf. I always felt that one of my father's greatest attributes was that he demanded from anyone with whom he was legally associated that such person be of the highest character, be dedicated to his profession, and be one who would always bring credit and honor to any legal position to which he might be elected. My father felt that Bubba possessed all of these qualities, and I think that Bubba's Judicial career as a circuit judge, as an associate justice, and now as the Chief Justice, has merited Daddy's confidence in him. Daddy felt the same way about Rodney, and he had looked forward so much to being there to come before your Committee with Rodney and to nominate Rodney to be an associate justice when the vacancy occurred. Regretfully, he was deprived of that opportunity, but I feel that I cannot let this occasion pass without reminding you and your Committee of the great love and affection, respect and admiration, that my father had for Rodney, and his certain belief, which I equally share, that Rodney will bring credit and honor to our Supreme Court.

With warm personal regards, I am

Sincerely,
/s/Sol Blatt, Jr.

Dear Senator Smith:

I am aware that Judge Rodney A. Peeples will be filing for the vacancy on the South Carolina Supreme Court, which will occur because of the retirement of Justice Ness and the promotion of Justice Gregory to be Chief Justice.

I am writing you with a great deal of pleasure with respect to Judge Peeples with whom I practiced before he was elected a Circuit Judge over thirteen years ago. He is a gentleman of great legal ability who works hard at his judicial duties, and is prepared when he comes to Court to determine legal issues.

Judge Peeples is a man of great integrity and ability. He would make a great addition to the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Judge Peeples is an asset to his State, to his community, to the judiciary and to the South Carolina Bar. I would recommend him unhesitatingly to fill the vacancy which will be occurring on the South Carolina Supreme Court.

With my best personal regards, I am,

Sincerely,
/s/Morris D. Rosen, Esq.
Rosen, Rosen & Hagood

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA     )

)                         AFFIDAVIT
COUNTY OF BARNWELL             )

Before me personally appeared, Rodney A. Peeples, who being duly sworn, states:

BORN JANUARY 8, 1940, - HAMPTON, S.C. - SON OF LATE MILES AND RUTH (STANLEY) PEEPLES.
GRADUATE WADE HAMPTON HIGH SCHOOL, 1958 - NUMEROUS CLUBS, ACTIVITIES AND HONORS, INCLUDING PRESIDENT OF STUDENT BODY, GUY WILLIAMS AWARD FOR OUTSTANDING MALE ATHLETE AND BOYS STATE.

MARRIED CLAUDIA GLENN WAITES OF COLUMBIA, S.C., 1962 - TWO DAUGHTERS, JANIE, 21, SENIOR AT USC AND KATIE, 18, FRESHMAN AT COLUMBIA COLLEGE.

GRADUATE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA - OBTAINED BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, 1961 (IN THREE YEARS) - VARIOUS ACTIVITIES AND CLUBS, INCLUDING KAPPA ALPHA ORDER.

GRADUATE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF LAW - JURIS DOCTOR DEGREE, 1964 (IN TWO AND A HALF YEARS) - PRESIDENT OF STUDENT BODY (SUMMER SCHOOL) - PHI DELTA PHI LEGAL FRATERNITY.

PAGE, S.C. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 1959-1964 ASSISTANT CHIEF PAGE, 1962-1964.

PRACTICED LAW WITH FIRM OF BLATT, FALES AND PEEPLES IN BARNWELL, 1964-1974, WITH GENERAL PRACTICE IN LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS - CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND APPELLATE.

MEMBER - REGIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE - CHAIRMAN, BARNWELL COUNTY UNITED FUND, CANCER SOCIETY AND HEART FUND - ADVISORY BOARD OF AMERICAN BANK AND TRUST - BOARD OF DIRECTORS, PALMETTO FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION - FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH - WESTERN CAROLINA HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION - LION - JAYCEE - RECIPIENT OF S.C. JAYCEE'S DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD AS OUTSTANDING YOUNG MAN IN SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976 - MASON - HARMONY LODGE #17, AFM - CHAIRMAN - FINANCE COMMITTEE - FRIENDS OF BARNWELL COUNTY LIBRARY BOARD OF DIRECTORS - BARNWELL COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION - BARNWELL WARHORSE CLUB THE SMITHSONIAN ASSOCIATES - SOUTH CAROLINA HISTORICAL SOCIETY - NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY - USC ALUMNI ASSOCIATION - SWEETWATER COUNTRY CLUB - THE SUMMIT CLUB - BARNWELL COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION - S.C. BAR ASSOCIATION - S.C. TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION.

MEMBER - GOVERNOR EDWARD'S TASK FORCE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, 1975-1978, WHICH DEVELOPED AND ESTABLISHED A UNIFORM STATEWIDE REPORTING SYSTEM FOR LOCAL AND STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND CREATED A CENTRAL REPOSITORY FOR COMPUTERIZED CRIMINAL HISTORY AND CRIMINAL RECORDS AND FURTHER PROVIDED FOR STATEWIDE TELETYPE AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM WITH IMMEDIATE RESPONSE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

MEMBER, GOVERNOR RILEY'S TASK FORCE ON ARSON, 1979-1984, WHICH STUDIED, REVISED AND OBTAINED LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL FOR REVISION IN ARSON LAWS IN SOUTH CAROLINA RELATIVE TO REPORTING, INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION AND PENALTIES.

APPOINTED MAY 15, 1987 - CHAIRMAN OF GOVERNOR CAMPBELL'S COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CRIME AND JUVENILE DELINQUENCY.

APPOINTED JULY 24, 1987 - BY GOVERNOR CAMPBELL TO GOVERNOR'S STRATEGIC COUNCIL ON DRUG EDUCATION, ENFORCEMENT AND TREATMENT.

ELECTED RESIDENT JUDGE OF SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF AIKEN, BAMBERG AND BARNWELL COUNTIES BY S.C. LEGISLATURE, UNOPPOSED, FEBRUARY 13, 1974 - QUALIFIED DECEMBER 5, 1974, AND SERVING CONTINUOUSLY SINCE - RE-ELECTED WITHOUT OPPOSITION, 1976, 1980, 1986 - GENERAL JURISDICTION TRIAL JUDGE - CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND EQUITY - APPEALS FROM PROBATE AND MAGISTRATE'S COURT AND FROM STATE AGENCIES UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT, INCLUDING UTILITY RATE HIKES, WORKER'S COMPENSATION, EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, ETC., ALSO JURISDICTION OF AND HEARD FAMILY COURT CASES UNTIL THE LEGISLATURE CREATED FAMILY COURT IN S.C., EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1977.

SECOND SENIOR CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE IN SOUTH CAROLINA WITH 13 YEARS SERVICE.

APPOINTED CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE IN EACH CIRCUIT ASSIGNED SINCE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM EXCEPT IN FALL OF 1985 WHEN ASSIGNED TO 12 COUNTIES IN VARIOUS CIRCUITS. FROM JANUARY TO JUNE OF 1977, ASSIGNED EXCLUSIVELY TO RICHLAND COUNTY GENERAL SESSIONS TO ALLEVIATE CONGESTED CRIMINAL DOCKET.

FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 1981, ASSIGNED AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE TO WORK WITH CIRCUIT JUDGES COX AND PYLE WITH EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION IN RICHLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BECAUSE 5,500 PENDING CIVIL CASES OR ONE-FOURTH OF STATEWIDE TOTAL AND DELAY OF EIGHTEEN MONTHS TO THREE YEARS BEFORE CASE COULD BE TRIED OR APPEAL HEARD.

ASSIGNED LAST SIX MONTHS OF 1987 TO FIFTEENTH CIRCUIT OF HORRY AND GEORGETOWN COUNTIES AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE FOR CIVIL COURT TO REDUCE BACKLOG OF APPROXIMATELY 2,400 JURY AND NONJURY CASES. AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1987, 1,403 CIVIL CASES WERE PENDING AND DOCKET NOW CURRENT.

PRESIDED AS CIRCUIT JUDGE IN EACH OF THE 46 COUNTIES AND ALL 16 JUDICIAL CIRCUITS OF SOUTH CAROLINA. PRESIDED IN TRIAL OF LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF EVERY CONCEIVABLE TYPE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASE AND HEARD NUMEROUS APPEALS.

APPOINTED AS ACTING ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF S.C. SUPREME COURT - DECEMBER 1986 AND FEBRUARY 1987 TERMS.

ATTENDED NATIONAL COLLEGE OF STATE JUDICIARY (NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE) JULY 1974 - GENERAL JURISDICTION SESSION - UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO, NEVADA - NEW TRENDS IN THE LAW, THE TRIAL AND PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING GRADUATE SESSION, 1976 - FACULTY ADVISOR 1978 AND 1980 - FACULTY MEMBER GENERAL JURISDICTION SESSION, MAY 1979 - LECTURED ON JUDICIAL ETHICS FOR JUDGES, COURTS AND THE NEWS MEDIA AND COURTS IN THE COMMUNITY CO-AUTHORED, ETHICS FOR JUDGES - NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE PUBLICATION, 1982 - CURRENTLY USED IN GENERAL JURISDICTION COURSES FOR NEW JUDGES AT NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE.

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION - MEMBER - 1964 TO PRESENT.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE TRIAL JUDGES (JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION DIVISION - ABA) DELEGATE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA TO ANNUAL MEETING, 1977-1987 CHAIRMAN, CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE, 1980-1982 - NOMINATING COMMITTEE, 1981 - CHAIRMAN - BUDGET COMMITTEE AND LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE, 1984 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEMAN FROM REGION IV (MD., D.C., VA., W. VA., N.C. AND S.C.), 1981-1983 - VICE-CHAIR 1983-1984 - CHAIR-ELECT, 1984-1985 - CHAIR OF NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE TRIAL JUDGES 1985-1986 REPRESENTING 1, 600 PLUS STATE TRIAL JUDGES IN THE UNITED STATES - JAD COUNCIL, 1985-1986 - CHAIRMAN NCSTJ NOMINATING COMMITTEE, 1986-1987.

MEMBER - JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION DIVISION NOMINATING COMMITTEE, 1986-1987.

MEMBER - JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION DIVISION WORKING GROUP ON ASBESTOSIS LITIGATION WHICH STUDIED AND DRAFTED PUBLICATION OF RECOMMENDED PRACTICES IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION.

SEPTEMBER, 1987 - APPOINTED TO TASK FORCE OF LAWYERS CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ON REDUCTION OF LITIGATION COST AND DELAY.

BOARD OF GOVERNORS - AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION NOVEMBER 13, 1987 - ELECTED TO A THREE-YEAR TERM AS JUDICIAL MEMBER-AT-LARGE OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS BY VOTE OF THE JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION DIVISION COUNCIL WHICH REPRESENTS FEDERAL TRIAL AND APPELLATE JUDGES, STATE TRIAL AND APPELLATE JUDGES, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AND SPECIAL COURT JUDGES COMPRISED OF MUNICIPAL, FAMILY COURT AND U.S. MAGISTRATES IN THE UNITED STATES. THE BOARD IS COMPRISED OF A TOTAL OF 26 MEMBERS, OF WHICH 17 ARE FROM DISTRICTS COMPRISED OF VARIOUS STATES, 6 SECTION MEMBERS-AT-LARGE, 2 YOUNG LAWYER MEMBERS-AT-LARGE AND THE JUDICIAL MEMBER-AT-LARGE POSITION TO WHICH I HAVE BEEN ELECTED. I WILL ASSUME OFFICE AT THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ABA IN TORONTO, CANADA IN AUGUST OF 1988. THE ABA IS THE LARGEST PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD WITH A MEMBERSHIP OF IN EXCESS OF 350,000 ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES.

AMERICAN JUDICATURE SOCIETY - BOARD OF DIRECTORS - 1986-1988 - FOUNDED IN 1913 AND WITH A PRESENT MEMBERSHIP OF APPROXIMATELY 29,000 LAWYERS, JUDGES AND PRIVATE CITIZENS, PUBLISHES JUDICATURE MAGAZINE SIX TIMES A YEAR. THE AIM OF THE SOCIETY IS TO PROMOTE THE EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN AMERICA. IT SEEKS TO PLAY AN ACTIVE ROLE AS A LINK BETWEEN CITIZENS AND THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, AS A CLEARINGHOUSE FOR FACTS, OPINIONS, IDEAS AND RESEARCH ON IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE - BOARD OF DIRECTORS VICE-CHAIRMAN - 1986 to PRESENT.

UPON THE URGING OF THE CONFERENCE OF CHIEF JUSTICES OF THE UNITED STATES, THE CONGRESS ENACTED 42 U.S.C.A. 10701 CREATING THE STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE. IT IS A PRIVATE, NONPROFIT CORPORATION WHOSE PURPOSE IS TO FURTHER THE DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTION OF IMPROVED JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IN STATE COURTS IN THE U.S. THE 1986- 1987 BUDGET APPROVED BY CONGRESS WAS 7.2 MILLION DOLLARS AND THE ANTICIPATED ALLOCATION FOR NEXT YEAR IS 10 to 12 MILLION DOLLARS. THE BOARD APPROVES AND ALLOCATES GRANTS TO STATE COURTS AND LAW RELATED ORGANIZATIONS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF JUSTICE IN STATE COURTS. THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION REQUIRED THAT SIX OF THE ELEVEN BOARD MEMBERS BE JUDGES AND I WAS INCLUDED ON THE LIST OF FOURTEEN JUDGES RECOMMENDED TO THE WHITE HOUSE BY THE CONFERENCE OF CHIEF JUSTICES. I WAS THEN RECOMMENDED BY PRESIDENT REAGAN IN JULY OF 1986, CONFIRMED BY THE U.S. SENATE, AND GIVEN THE OATH OF OFFICE BY CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN E. BURGER AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN WASHINGTON, D.C. AS A CHARTER MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. ELECTED BY THE BOARD AS VICE-CHAIRMAN.

CHAIRMAN - S.C. TRIAL JUDGES ASSOCIATION 1985- 1987.

MEMBER - S.C. CIRCUIT JUDGES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

MEMBER - S.C. STATE-FEDERAL JUDICIAL COUNCIL APPOINTED BY CHIEF JUSTICE.

MEMBER - S.C. SENTENCING GUIDELINES COMMISSION APPOINTED BY S.C. SUPREME COURT AS ONE OF TWO CIRCUIT COURT REPRESENTATIVES.

MEMBER - S.C. COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION - APPOINTED BY S.C. SUPREME COURT AS ONE OF TWO CIRCUIT COURT REPRESENTATIVES.

LECTURED PREVIOUSLY AT SCHOOL FOR NEW S.C. CIRCUIT JUDGES AND SEMINARS FOR LAW CLERKS AND STAFF ATTORNEYS - LECTURED PREVIOUSLY FOR CLINICS PROGRAM AT UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA LAW SCHOOL AND S.C. BAR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION - JUDGE FOR USC LAW SCHOOL MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE IDENTIFICATION INDEX (III) FOR NATIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (NCIC) OF U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

DELEGATE TO NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE JUDICIARY ON THE RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF CRIME, NOVEMBER 1983 NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE - UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA RENO, NEVADA.

DELEGATE TO NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SENTENCING BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, JANUARY 1984 - SPONSORED BY NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE.

DELEGATE TO NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE JUDICIARY ON CRISES IN THE STREETS, JAIL AND PRISON OVERCROWDING, MARCH 1985 - NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE - UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO, NEVADA - MEMBER - PLANNING COMMITTEE.

DELEGATE TO ACADEMY OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SCIENCES - SPONSORED BY NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, MARCH 31 - APRIL 4, 1985 - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA.

HONORED BY S.C. TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION AT ANNUAL CONVENTION WITH PORTRAIT AND SCHOLARSHIP FUND AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA LAW SCHOOL IN NAME OF JUDGE RODNEY PEEPLES BY PARTICIPATING MEMBERS OF THE BAR - AUGUST 16-18, 1985.

ATTENDED NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COURT DELAY, SEPTEMBER 5-7, 1985 - DENVER, COLORADO.

SEPTEMBER 13, 1985 - GUEST SPEAKER - STATE OF MICHIGAN JUDICIAL CONFERENCE - DETROIT, MICHIGAN.

RECIPIENT OF SECOND ANNUAL VICTIMS' RIGHTS AWARD - APRIL 18, 1986 - "IN GRATEFUL RECOGNITION OF HIS EFFORTS IN GENERAL SESSIONS COURT TO SEEK JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS".

DELEGATE TO NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF CRIME - SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. - SEPTEMBER 18-20, 1986. MEMBER - PLANNING COMMITTEE - RECEIVED NATIONAL AWARD FOR MERITORIOUS SERVICE IN THE CAUSE OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS AT LOCAL, STATE AND NATIONAL LEVELS.

DELEGATE - JUDICIAL STATE-OF-THE-ART CONFERENCE "PRESIDING IN CRIMINAL COURT" - PHOENIX, ARIZONA SEPTEMBER 19-23, 1987 - SPONSORED BY NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE.

MEMBER - BOARD OF VISITORS - CLEMSON UNIVERSITY 1987-1989.

MEMBER - COLUMBIA COLLEGE PARENTS ADVISORY COUNCIL - 1987-1988.

________________________________
SWORN to before me this
7th day of December, 1987

________________________________

Notary Public for S.C.
My Commission Expires:__________

YOUR CREDIT IS REPORTED AS SATISFACTORY. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE INDICATES THAT AS AN ATTORNEY NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES WERE EVER FILED AGAINST YOU. THE COMMISSIONERS ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS SAY THAT YOU HAVE NO RECORD OF REPRIMAND BY THAT BODY. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS CLEAR. THE BARNWELL COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE HAS BEEN CONTACTED AND THEIR RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE BARNWELL CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN CONTACTED AND THEIR RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE, WHICH MEANS THERE IS NO RECORD. THE CRIMINAL RECORD SECTION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION REPORT IS NEGATIVE. THERE ARE SOME JUDGMENTS, SOME INDICATIONS IN THE BARNWELL CLERK OF COURT'S OFFICE REGARDING SOME JUDGMENTS, AND WE WILL RETURN TO THOSE, BUT I BELIEVE YOU DISCLOSED ALL OF THOSE, IS THAT CORRECT?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     AND YOUR F.B.I. CARD IS CLEAR. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST IS UNREMARKABLE AS WE SAY, INDICATING ONLY YOUR JUDICIAL SALARY. JUDGE, IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE, IN THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE, YOU MENTION FOUR OR FIVE VARIOUS SUITS. DID WE EXPLAIN THOSE SATISFACTORILY IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE?

A     YES, SIR. AND, SENATOR, MAY I COMMENT, YOU INDICATED THERE WERE JUDGMENTS OF RECORD IN THE BARNWELL COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. THERE ARE NO JUDGMENTS AGAINST ME BUT I HAVE BEEN A DEFENDANT IN A LAWSUIT.

Q     NO JUDGMENTS BUT YOU HAVE BEEN A DEFENDANT LISTED?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     YOU MENTIONED HERE THAT IN THE HIERS SUIT AGAINST YOU AND JUDGE BLATT, WAS THAT IN FEDERAL COURT OR STATE COURT?

A     NO, SIR, THAT WAS IN STATE COURT. IT WAS BROUGHT SIMULTANEOUSLY IN CHARLESTON BECAUSE JUDGE BLATT WAS LIVING THERE AND IN BARNWELL BUT HE CONTENDED BARNWELL IS HIS RESIDENCE AND IT WAS MOVED TO BARNWELL.

Q     AND THAT CASE WAS DISMISSED ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     THE CASE INVOLVING THE SHOPPING CENTER IN SUMTER, WAS THAT IN STATE OR FEDERAL COURT?

A     THAT WAS IN STATE COURT IN SUMTER COMMON PLEAS.

Q     AND I BELIEVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED THERE?

A     YES, SIR. AT ISSUE WAS JUST THE INTERPRETATION OF A CLAUSE IN A LEASE THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE LEASE IN 1962 OR '63 WHEN THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPERS BUILT THE CENTER. MYSELF AND MY PARTNERS HAD PURCHASED THE CENTER IN MAYBE '83 AND THE ISSUE THEN AROSE AS TO THE OPTION LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN THE LEASE. IT WAS A MATTER OF LAW.

Q     NO QUESTION OF ANY DAMAGES OR WRONGDOING?

A     NO, SIR. IT WAS AN INTERPRETATION OF A CLAUSE AND AN OPTION.

Q     THEN, JUDGE, I NOTICE YOU ALSO STATE HERE THAT IT HAS RECENTLY COME TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT YOU WERE NAMED AS A DEFENDANT IN FOUR CASES FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, HOW DID THAT COME TO YOUR ATTENTION?

A     IT CAME TO MY ATTENTION THROUGH SOMEONE CALLING ME ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO AND ASKING ME ABOUT A CASE IN WHICH I HAD BEEN SUED IN FEDERAL COURT AND I KNEW NOTHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE I HAD NEVER BEEN SERVED, SO AT THAT TIME I CALLED THE CLERK OF THE FEDERAL COURT AND ASKED FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING IT AND, OF COURSE, MRS. BIRCH, THE CLERK'S, LETTER IS ATTACHED TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE INDICATING THAT I WAS NOT SERVED WITH PROCESS OR KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT THE SUIT.

Q     AS A MATTER OF FACT, AFTER THESE FOUR CASES WERE BROUGHT THAT YOU WERE ALLEGEDLY SUED BUT YOU NEVER KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY WERE DISMISSED, THE FEDERAL COURT CHANGED THEIR PROCEDURE TO SEND JUDGES COPIES OF SUITS THAT WERE FILED AGAINST THEM?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     YOU HAVE INDICATED VOLUNTARILY HERE THAT THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION, THAT SEVERAL COMPLAINTS HAD BEEN MADE, WERE ALL OF THOSE CRIMINAL, IF YOU RECALL? THEY HAVE ALL BEEN DISMISSED. YOU STATE THEY WERE DISGRUNTLED DEFENDANTS, WERE THERE ANY CIVIL ONES THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT?

A     NO, SIR, NONE CIVIL. I REMEMBER ONE LADY COMPLAINED THAT HER SON DIDN'T GET PROBATION FOR HAVING BROKEN INTO A DRUGSTORE I THINK, AND SHE DIDN'T LIKE THE FACT HE WAS SENTENCED TO YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, AND I BELIEVE MR. HEATH, WHO IS TO APPEAR HERE TODAY, THAT WAS ONE THAT WAS NOT PER SE A CRIMINAL CASE BUT IT DID OCCUR IN CRIMINAL COURT IN GENERAL SESSIONS.

Q     JUDGE, YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT YOUR HEALTH IS EXCELLENT BUT I BELIEVE YOU HAD A LITTLE BACK TROUBLE RECENTLY, WOULD YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT? WERE YOU HOSPITALIZED FOR THAT?

A     YES, SIR. ON NOVEMBER 2ND OF THIS YEAR I WAS IN CONWAY PRESIDING AND ON THAT MONDAY MORNING I HAD A SHARP PAIN IN MY BACK. I THOUGHT AT THE TIME IT WAS A RECURRENCE OF A KIDNEY STONE. I HAD TO MISS THE CLEMSON-CAROLINA GAME IN NOVEMBER OF '83 WITH A KIDNEY STONE ATTACK AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS WHAT IT WAS. I DID GO OUT TO THE CONWAY HOSPITAL AND THEY RAN TESTS ON ME THERE AND TOLD ME I SHOULD GO TO BED. I DIDN'T WANT TO STAY IN THE HOSPITAL SO I STAYED IN BED FOR SEVERAL DAYS AND THE PAIN PERSISTED, SO AT THAT TIME I WENT TO THE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY IN CHARLESTON AND THEY RAN EXTENSIVE TESTS AND GAVE ME A CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH, AND I WASHED WINDOWS AND CLEANED GUTTERS--PINE STRAW OUT OF THE GUTTERS--LAST SATURDAY GETTING READY FOR CHRISTMAS, SO I AM PLEASED TO TELL YOU MY BACK IS FINE AND I FEEL I AM IN EXCELLENT HEALTH.

Q     YOU HAVE, AS ALL THE OTHERS, SUBMITTED FIVE LETTERS OF REFERENCE INCLUDING YOUR BANKER. WE APPRECIATE THAT. DO MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS? THEY NEVER KNOW WHEN I AM GOING TO STOP ASKING AND TURN TO THEM.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS:

Q     THE FOUR INDIVIDUALS WHO FILED THE PRO SE ACTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT, WERE THEY CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS?

A     YES, SIR. EACH OF THEM WERE CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS, EACH OF THEM REPRESENTED THEMSELVES, EACH OF THEM WERE IN JAIL AT THE TIME THAT THE SUITS WERE BROUGHT AND EACH OF THE SUITS WERE SUMMARILY DISMISSED BY THE FEDERAL COURT.

Q     AND ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THOSE CASES OR DO YOU RECALL THEM? I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE BEEN A VERY ACTIVE JUDGE FOR A GOOD NUMBER OF YEARS, DO YOU RECALL THOSE INDIVIDUALS OR NOT?

A     I DO NOT RECALL ANY EXCEPT THE FIRST ONE BECAUSE I REMEMBER WHEN HE GOT OUT OF JAIL, HE SHOWED ME HIS FALSE TEETH AND THANKED ME FOR SENDING HIM TO JAIL BECAUSE THEY HAD GIVEN HIM SOME GOOD TEETH IN THE PENITENTIARY. NO, SIR, I DON'T KNOW ANY OF THEM. I COULDN'T IDENTIFY ANY OF THEM EXCEPT FOR BOBBY RAY ARTHURS.

Q     THAT WAS THE OLDEST CASE I BELIEVE. IT LOOKS LIKE A '77 DATE, BUT YOU DO RECALL HIM?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     I HAVE NOT SEEN THE RECORDS. JUDGE, YOU HAVE A REPUTATION AS A VERY HARDWORKING JUDGE AND HAVE ESTABLISHED QUITE A RECORD FOR MOVING CASES AND EXPEDITING DOCKETS ACROSS THE STATE AND I KNOW YOU ARE FREQUENTLY SENT INTO THE CIRCUITS WHERE THERE ARE PROBLEMS, AND YOU HAVE BEEN NOTED AS A JUDGE WHO WILL CLEAR UP THE DOCKET AND GET THINGS BACK ON SCHEDULE. THERE IS NO QUESTION BUT THAT THE PRIMARY CRITICISM OF YOU HAS BEEN THAT AT TIMES IN COURT YOU ARE SOMEWHAT SHORT WITH LAWYERS. I WOULD NOTE THAT YOU HAVE ALWAYS BEEN EXTREMELY COURTEOUS TO ME WHEN I APPEARED BEFORE YOU THE ONE OR TWO TIMES I HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY. WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO THE CRITICISM THAT HAS BEEN LEVELED AT YOU FOR YOUR, AT TIMES, SHORT TREATMENT OF LAWYERS?

A     I'M NOT AWARE SPECIFICALLY OF CRITICISM OF SHORT TREATMENT OF LAWYERS, MR. ROGERS, BUT I AM PAINFULLY AWARE OF THE FACT THAT IN THE CONDUCT OF THE COURTS AND THE ATTEMPT AND EFFORT TO TRY.TO EFFICIENTLY AND ECONOMICALLY ADMINISTER THE COURTS THAT THERE ARE SO MANY LOGISTICS INVOLVED IN COURT. FOR EXAMPLE, I HAVE BEEN PRESIDING IN CONWAY SINCE JULY. A GREAT NUMBER OF THOSE LITIGANTS ARE TRANSIENT PEOPLE. BY "TRANSIENT" I MEAN THEY ARE FROM OUT OF STATE. THEY MAY BE FROM OHIO OR MARYLAND AND THEY ARE IN HORRY ENJOYING AND AVAILING THEMSELVES OF THE AMENITIES OF THIS FINE STATE IN THE GRAND STRAND AREA, AND THEY ARE IN AN AUTOMOBILE WRECK. WELL, IT'S RATHER DIFFICULT TO TRY TO KEEP THE TRAIN ON THE TRACK WHEN YOU HAVE WITNESSES INVOLVED. A JUDGE MUST BE CONSIDERATE OF THE FACT THAT THE JURORS OFTENTIMES ARE THERE AT $10 OR $12 OR $15 A DAY, BUT CERTAINLY LESS THAN MINIMUM WAGE, AND IT'S NOT AN EASY TASK TRYING TO HAVE THINGS MOVE SMOOTHLY. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAVE A CASE SET FOR A TRIAL ON MONDAY AND THEN ON THURSDAY AN ATTORNEY IN THAT CASE WILL FILE A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, WELL, THE JUDGE GOES ON THE BENCH, THE JURY IS THERE, THE WITNESS IS THERE, THE COURT REPORTER, THE BAILIFFS, THE VARIOUS COURT PERSONNEL, AND YOU HAVE TO STOP TO HEAR THAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, THE JUDGE NEEDS TIME TO REFLECT AND THINK AND STUDY THE LAW JUST AS AN ATTORNEY PREPARES LITIGATION TO PROPERLY REPRESENT HIS CLIENT, AND I SUPPOSE I HAVE PUSHED HARD, I DON'T QUESTION THAT I HAVE, TO TRY TO HAVE AN EFFICIENT COURT SYSTEM AND TO TRY TO HAVE AN ECONOMICAL COURT SYSTEM BECAUSE IT'S THE TAXPAYERS THAT ARE FOOTING THE BILL FOR THE THIRD BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, THE JUDICIARY, AND IF I HAVE BEEN HARD, I HOPE THAT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF MY EFFORT TO TRY TO HAVE A SPEEDY TRIAL IN BOTH CRIMINAL AND IN CIVIL COURTS IN THE STATE, SIR.

Q     JUDGE, ONE OTHER AREA THAT HAS RECEIVED SOME ATTENTION IN THE PRESS IN RECENT TIMES, I WAS NOT AWARE OF IT, WAS THAT YOU SMOKE IN COURT ON OCCASION. WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO THAT ALLEGATION?

A     WELL, YOU AND SENATOR SMITH ARE FROM TOBACCO COUNTRY, AND I WILL, OF COURSE, I HAVE ON OCCASION SMOKED IN COURT RATHER THAN TAKE A RECESS AND I MIGHT MOVE ON FOR TWO AND TWO AND A HALF HOURS CAN TAKE A RECESS EVERY 10 OR 15 MINUTES BUT WHEN YOU HAVE 12 JURORS WHO HAVE TO STAND IN LINE TO GO TO ONE BATHROOM, YOU ARE GOING TO BE IN RECESS HALF THE TIME. THAT IS A HABIT OF SMOKING IN GENERAL AND ON OCCASION I HAVE SMOKED IN THE COURTROOM AND THAT PROBABLY IS NOT THE BETTER THING FOR ME TO DO, BUT I HAVE, SIR, DONE THAT.

SENATOR SMITH: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE? MR. ROGERS, ARE YOU CONCLUDED?

SENATOR ROGERS: I AM THROUGH AT THIS TIME.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     JUDGE, DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE DEATH PENALTY?

A     NO, SIR.

SENATOR MCCONNELL: I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR SMITH:

Q     JUDGE, ONE THING I OMITTED, JUST AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION, YOU INDICATED IN AN ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT WITH ALL OF YOUR BACKGROUND FILED WITH US THAT YOU WERE THE SECOND SENIOR CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE IN SOUTH CAROLINA. WHO IS THE FIRST?

A     JUDGE DAN LANEY WAS ELECTED IN 1970. I WAS ELECTED IN 1974. I AM THE SECOND SENIOR JUDGE YOU KNOW SENIORITY AND A QUARTER WILL GET YOU A CUP OF COFFEE, I AM THE FIFTH SENIOR STATE JUDGE INCLUDING ALL COURTS IN THE STATE.

Q     ALSO, I NOTICE THAT GOVERNOR CAMPBELL NAMED YOU CHAIRMAN OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE CRIME AND JUVENILE DELINQUENCY COMMITTEE, IS THAT CORRECT?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT HE HAS APPOINTED YOU TO THE GOVERNOR'S STRATEGIC COUNCIL ON DRUG EDUCATION ENFORCEMENT AND TREATMENT?

A     YES, SIR. THERE IS ABOUT SIX MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO BE DIVIDED BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT. PARKER EVATT CHAIRS THAT COMMITTEE.

Q     YOU ALSO INDICATE YOU HAVE HELD COURT IN ALL 46 COUNTIES AND ALL THE CIRCUITS AND, AS MR. ROGERS HAS INDICATED, YOU HAVE BEEN AN ACTIVE TRIAL JUDGE. IF YOU ARE ELECTED TO THE SUPREME COURT, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE RESTLESS? YOU ARE NOT GOING TO MISS THAT COURTROOM GLAMOUR?

A     I PROMISE YOU I WON'T. I HAVE CERTAINLY ENJOYED MYSELF BUT THAT THREE AND A HALF HOUR DRIVE ON SUNDAY EVENING AND THE THREE AND A HALF HOURS ON FRIDAY, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DRIVE TO COLUMBIA LIKE YOU GENTLEMEN RATHER THAN MOVE ABOUT THE STATE, ALTHOUGH IT HAS BEEN A REAL EXPERIENCE. I LOVE HISTORY AND I HAVE ENJOYED LEARNING THE HISTORY OF THIS STATE AND I PARTICULARLY ENJOYED MEETING THE PEOPLE IN THE FAR CORNERS OF THE STATE, AND WE ARE BLESSED IN SOUTH CAROLINA, THE PEOPLE, THE LAWYERS, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT, COURT OFFICIALS, EVERYONE TREATS THE CIRCUIT JUDGES SO NICE THAT IT'S MADE IT PLEASANT IN THESE TRAVELS AND I APPRECIATE HAVING HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY.

SENATOR SMITH: THANK YOU, SIR. ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, OF COURSE, JUDGE, TWO INDIVIDUALS HAVE FILED TO TESTIFY IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR SEEKING THIS POSITION AND AT THIS TIME I WOULD ASK YOU TO HAVE A SEAT AND WE WOULD CALL THEM TO TESTIFY. MR. BRYANT, AND I MIGHT SAY MR. BRYANT SUBMITTED A STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE AND IT IS IN YOUR PACKET.

MR. BRYANT: MR. CHAIRMAN, LET ME SAY AT THE OUTSET OF THIS PROCEEDING THAT I HAVE NO INTEREST IN THIS RACE THAT IS BEING CONDUCTED OF WHICH I AM AWARE BETWEEN JUDGE PEEPLES AND MRS. TOAL. I AM NOT INVOLVED IN THAT RACE. I HAVE NOT BEEN TALKED TO BY EITHER OF THEM OR ANYBODY ON THEIR BEHALF AND AM NOT SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING THE CANDIDACY IN A NORMAL FASHION OF EITHER ONE OF THEM. MRS. TOAL AND I HARDLY KNOW EACH OTHER. SHE CAME TO THE LEGISLATURE AFTER I LEFT BUT WE KNOW EACH OTHER TO SPEAK. JUDGE PEEPLES AND I PRACTICED LAW IN NEARBY COUNTIES IN ADJOINING CIRCUITS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND I HAVE KNOWN HIM PLEASANTLY, BUT ONLY CASUALLY OVER THE YEARS, SO I HAVE NO TIES TO EITHER OF THESE PARTICULAR CANDIDATES.

SENATOR SMITH: WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR HAND TO TAKE THE OATH.

(THOMAS B. BRYANT, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY SENATOR SMITH, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

MR. BRYANT: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, IN JANUARY OF 1984 I WAS RETAINED BY A FRIEND I HAD KNOWN FROM CHILDHOOD, WILL KELLY, TO REPRESENT HIM IN CONNECTION WITH MATTERS INVOLVING HIS STEPFATHER'S ESTATE. HIS STEPFATHER WAS A. WILKES KNIGHT WHO LIVED IN ORANGEBURG. MR. KNIGHT DIED ON AUGUST 22, 1983. WILL AND HIS STEPFATHER HAD A VERY GOOD RELATIONSHIP. MR. KNIGHT HAD MARRIED WILL'S MOTHER IN THE MID-FIFTIES. SHE WAS A WOLFE FROM ORANGEBURG AND WILL KELLY WAS THE ONLY CHILD THAT WILKES KNIGHT EVER HAD.

I WOULD LIKE TO INTERJECT HERE THAT CONTRARY TO SOME PUBLISHED REPORTS, EVEN AS LATE AS THIS MORNING IN THE LOCAL PAPERS, AND I STAND TO BE CORRECTED AND I WISH YOU WOULD IF I AM WRONG, BUT I THINK JUDGE PEEPLES HAS NO RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. KNIGHT OR MRS. KNIGHT. HE HAS BEEN REFERRED TO ERRONEOUSLY AS BEING MRS. KNIGHT'S STEPSON OR MRS. KNIGHT MARRIED JUDGE PEEPLES' FATHER, AND I DON'T THINK THAT IS CORRECT.

SENATOR SMITH: I INTENDED TO ASK JUDGE PEEPLES THAT. I BELIEVE YOUR STATEMENT, MR. BRYANT IS CORRECT, IS THAT NOT RIGHT JUDGE PEEPLES THAT THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP?

JUDGE PEEPLES: CORRECT.

A     IN APRIL OF 1972 MR. KNIGHT MARRIED PAULINE HOLMAN FROM BARNWELL. THIS WAS HIS THIRD MARRIAGE HER FOURTH. THEY REMAINED MARRIED AND LIVED IN ORANGEBURG FOR THE MOST PART EXCEPT FOR A BRIEF PERIOD WHEN THEY FIRST MARRIED WHEN THEY LIVED IN BARNWELL AND LIVED IN ORANGEBURG THE ENTIRE TIME GUESS ABOUT 11 OR 12 YEARS. WHEN MR. KNIGHT DIED IN AUGUST OF 1983, MRS. KNIGHT WAS A PATIENT AT THE NURSING HOME IN ORANGEBURG AND SHE WAS NOT IN GOOD CONDITION THEN, AND, AS I INDICATED, WAS IN A WHEELCHAIR AT HIS FUNERAL. MR. KELLY, MY CLIENT, WAS THE EXECUTOR UNDER HIS STEPFATHER'S WILL BUT MRS. KNIGHT RECEIVED BASICALLY THE ENTIRE ESTATE EXCEPT FOR SOME SMALL BEQUESTS TO OTHERS.

SHORTLY AFTER MR. KNIGHT'S DEATH AND WITHIN JUST SEVERAL DAYS JUDGE PEEPLES APPROACHED KELLY, MY CLIENT, AND MRS. KELLY CONCERNING MRS. KNIGHT'S WELL-BEING AND INDICATED A WILLINGNESS TO ASSUME SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR HER SINCE THE KELLYS LIVED IN WASHINGTON, AND THIS JUDGE AND MRS. PEEPLES DID. ON AUGUST 31ST, WHICH WAS A LITTLE MORE THAN A WEEK AFTER KNIGHT DIED, MRS. KNIGHT AT THE NURSING HOME IN ORANGEBURG GAVE A POWER OF ATTORNEY TO A GENTLEMAN NAMED ELROY DANTZLER, WHO IS AN ACCOUNTANT IN ORANGEBURG AND A FRIEND OF JUDGE PEEPLES ON SEPTEMBER 29TH JUST ABOUT A MONTH, A FEW DAYS LONGER THAN A MONTH AFTER MR. KNIGHT'S DEATH, JUDGE AND MRS. PEEPLES MOVED MRS. KNIGHT TO BARNWELL TO A BARNWELL COUNTY NURSING HOME I BELIEVE IN BLACKVILLE. WITHIN SEVERAL WEEKS JUDGE PEEPLES APPROACHED KELLY AGAIN BY TELEPHONE, AND I AM NOT EXACTLY SURE AT WHAT POINT IN TIME THESE TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS BEGAN, BUT THERE WAS CONTACT BETWEEN JUDGE PEEPLES AND KELLY, AND HE APPROACHED HIM FIRST BY TELEPHONE AND THEN BY LETTER ASKING AND SUBSEQUENTLY DEMANDING THAT KELLY HONOR AN AGREEMENT FROM 1972 THAT HE HAD ONCE HAD WITH HIS STEPFATHER KNIGHT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SOME LEASES AND SOME LAUNDROMAT EQUIPMENT.

MR. KNIGHT WAS COUNTY DIRECTOR FOR ORANGEBURG COUNTY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. HE WAS A HIGHWAY ENGINEER, AND ON THE SIDE HE HAD SEVERAL LITTLE COIN OPERATED LAUNDROMATS, AND IN 1969 I BELIEVE OUR CASE SHOWS HE BEGAN TO LEASE THESE LAUNDROMATS TO MR. KELLY AND MR. KELLY WOULD TAKE THE MONEY OUT OF THE MACHINES EVERY WEEK OR EVERY MONTH OR HOWEVER YOU DO IT. IN '72 THEY MADE A DEAL WHEREBY KELLY WOULD BUY THESE MACHINES AND LEASES AND WHATNOT FROM HIM. THAT WAS THE HEART OF OUR LAWSUIT THAT HAS JUST CONCLUDED, BUT THE AGREEMENT CALLED FOR A CONSIDERATION OF KELLY TO PAY KNIGHT $300 A MONTH AS THE PURCHASE PRICE. HE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN PAYING $300 PER MONTH UNDER THIS LEASE, THIS RENTAL AGREEMENT. AFTER KNIGHT'S DEATH THE $300 WAS TO CONTINUE AS LONG AS MRS. KNIGHT LIVED IF SHE SURVIVED HIM.

WHEN JUDGE PEEPLES APPROACHED KELLY ABOUT THIS, KELLY REPEATEDLY ANSWERED HIM ASSERTING THAT THE AGREEMENT HAD NEVER BEEN ENACTED. IT HAD BEEN CALLED OFF, IT HAD BEEN RESCINDED JUST AFTER IT WAS MADE BECAUSE OF TAX CONSIDERATIONS. THAT WAS THE QUESTION IN THE LAWSUIT.

JUDGE PEEPLES WOULDN'T ACCEPT THIS EXPLANATION AND PROMPTED THE ATTORNEY-IN-FACT DANTZLER TO BRING AN ACTION IN THE PROBATE COURT IN WHICH HE SOUGHT TO HAVE KELLY REMOVED AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE ALLEGING THAT KELLY HAD A CONFLICT. AS EXECUTOR, HE WASN'T GOING TO SUE HIMSELF INDIVIDUALLY TO PAY THIS MONEY TO THE ESTATE. THIS ACTION WAS SUCCESSFUL. THE JUDGE OF PROBATE AGREED THERE MIGHT BE A CONFLICT IF A DEBT EXISTED, AND HE REMOVED KELLY. WE APPEALED THIS DECISION AND ULTIMATELY APPEALED IT TO THE SUPREME COURT AND LOST IT. WE APPEALED ON THE GROUNDS THAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE ENTITLED TO A TRIAL DE NOVO ON THE ISSUE ON APPEAL FROM THE PROBATE COURT, AND WE LOST THAT. WE WERE HOPING THAT WE COULD INTRODUCE THE ACCOUNTANT THAT REPRESENTED KELLY IN THE PROBATE COURT AND DIDN'T TESTIFY ABOUT ALL THESE TAX CONSIDERATIONS.

I GOT INTO THE CASE AFTER THE PROBATE PROCEEDING AND BEFORE THE NEXT ONE, AND I SAID IF THE ACCOUNTANT TESTIFIES, THAT WILL END THE MATTER IT'S SO CLEAR-CUT. THEY WOULDN'T LET HIM TESTIFY. I DIDN'T GET MY TRIAL DE NOVO, BUT THE ENTIRE TIME THE APPEAL WAS PENDING KELLY REMAINED AS EXECUTOR OF HIS STEPFATHER'S ESTATE.

IN LATE OCTOBER OF 1984 AT MY SUGGESTION AND IN AN EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE MATTER WE BROUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION IN CIRCUIT COURT SEEKING TO HAVE THIS MATTER HEARD IN ITS ENTIRETY WHERE WE KNEW THAT IT WOULD BE RESOLVED FAVORABLY FOR KELLY BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE WE THOUGHT WAS VERY POWERFUL IN HIS FAVOR AND WE DIDN'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE OTHER SIDE.

SENATOR SMITH: EXCUSE ME, I BELIEVE YOU MEANT OCTOBER '84.

MR. BRYANT: THAT'S A MISPRINT IN MY STATEMENT. IT'S OCTOBER 29, 1984. YOURS SAYS 1974, I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST MRS. KNIGHT, REALLY THE ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, IN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, BUT A COUNTERCLAIM WAS FILED BY THE ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, DANTZLER, ALLEGING THE AGREEMENT WAS VALID AND KELLY OWED "X" NUMBER OF DOLLARS TO KNIGHT'S ESTATE AND HE OWED "X" NUMBER OF DOLLARS TO MRS. KNIGHT, AND THEN HE OWED $300 A MONTH FOR THE REST OF MRS. KNIGHT'S LIFE.

THE TRIAL COURT AFTER THE MATTER WAS MOVED TO BARNWELL--THE CASE WAS BROUGHT IN ORANGEBURG COUNTY AND THEY MOVED TO CHANGE VENUE TO BARNWELL. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE IT WAS A NON-JURY MATTER AND IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE IT MATTERED TO ME BUT IT MATTERED TO THEM BECAUSE THEY VIGOROUSLY SOUGHT TO HAVE THE CASE MOVED TO BARNWELL, AND IT WAS MOVED TO BARNWELL ON THE GROUNDS THAT MRS. KNIGHT WAS A RESIDENT OF BARNWELL OVER IN BARNWELL COUNTY, AND IT WAS HEARD IN BARNWELL COUNTY. THE TRIAL JUDGE, JUDGE COTTINGHAM, HEARING THE MATTER WITHOUT A JURY RULED IN FAVOR OF MRS. KNIGHT, RULED IN FAVOR OF DANTZLER, AND RENDERED A JUDGMENT AGAINST US AND ALSO ORDERED HIM TO BEGIN PAYING THE $300 A MONTH TO MRS. KNIGHT AS LONG AS SHE LIVED. SHE WAS STILL ALIVE THEN.

THE SUPREME COURT, HOWEVER, ON NOVEMBER 23RD OF THIS YEAR, JUST LAST MONTH, REVERSED HOLDING FOR KELLY, AND ON DECEMBER 4TH, 1987, I GUESS MONDAY A WEEK AGO, KELLY WAS REINSTATED AS EXECUTOR OF HIS STEPFATHER'S ESTATE.

I WOULD LIKE TO TELL THIS COMMITTEE NOW, AND I WILL TRY TO BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE AND MOVE THROUGH SOME OF THIS MATERIAL WITHOUT GOING THROUGH ALL OF IT, BUT HOW I FEEL THAT JUDGE PEEPLES' CONDUCT THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE SERIES OF EVENTS AFFECTS HIS QUALIFICATIONS TO SERVE AS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

FIRST, IN 1974 JUDGE PEEPLES WHILE A LAWYER IN BARNWELL PREPARED A WILL FOR THIS LADY, MRS. KNIGHT, THE PERSON THAT I HAVE TALKED ABOUT, IN WHICH SHE LEFT HER ENTIRE ESTATE TO HER HUSBAND THEN LIVING FOR HIS LIFETIME, AND THEN AT HIS DEATH THE ENTIRE ESTATE WAS TO GO TO THE TWO YOUNG DAUGHTERS OF JUDGE AND MRS. PEEPLES. AT THE TIME I GUESS THEIR AGES WERE ABOUT 8 AND 3, I AM NOT EXACTLY SURE. IN ADDITION, THIS WILL NAMED JUDGE PEEPLES AS THE ALTERNATIVE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE. AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID, MR. KNIGHT ULTIMATELY PREDECEASED MRS. KNIGHT AND, AS A RESULT, HE WAS NOT THERE WHEN SHE DIED AND SO HER ENTIRE ESTATE GOES DIRECTLY TO THE YOUNG PEEPLES' GIRLS. JUDGE PEEPLES ALSO QUALIFIED TO SERVE AS EXECUTOR OF HER ESTATE.

RULE 32 OF THE RULES OF PRACTICE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THIS STATE, OUR COURT OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, CANON 5, PROVIDES A LAWYER SHOULD EXERCISE INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT. I HAVE REFERRED TO THE ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN THE COMMENTS MENTIONED AFTER THAT, BUT I THINK PLAINLY STATED, AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AWARE OF THIS, THAT A LAWYER SHOULD NEVER MAKE A WILL FOR A CLIENT IN WHICH HE IS NAMED HIMSELF OR ANY MEMBER OF HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY. HE BENEFICIALLY BEING NAMED, AND HERE JUDGE PEEPLES AS A PRACTICING LAWYER DID THAT. HE STATED HE HAD DRAWN THE WILL IN QUESTION THAT HE DREW FOR HER, AND SUCH CONDUCT ON BEHALF OF AN ATTORNEY HAS LONG BEEN FROWNED ON, CONSIDERED INAPPROPRIATE, BUT APPARENTLY NOT IN THIS INSTANCE BY JUDGE PEEPLES WHEN HE WAS A PRACTICING LAWYER.

IN ADDITION, YOU WILL SEE I MENTIONED THE FURTHER ETHICAL CONSIDERATION THAT A JUDGE SHOULD NOT CONSCIOUSLY INFLUENCE ANYBODY TO NAME HIM AS EXECUTOR IN A WILL. WHETHER OR NOT JUDGE PEEPLES CONSCIOUSLY INFLUENCED HER, I DO NOT KNOW. HE WAS NOT A WITNESS TO THE WILL BUT SHE NAMED HIM AS EXECUTOR. I THINK HE HAS CLEARLY INFRINGED, IF NOT BEEN GUILTY, OF VIOLATING THIS CANON OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS APPLICABLE TO LAWYERS WHEN HE WAS A LAWYER AND WHEN HE WAS IN A POSITION OF TRUST WITH THIS LADY, WHO I THINK IT WILL LATER BE SEEN WAS A GOOD FRIEND OF HIS AND FROM TIME TO TIME HAD BEEN A NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR. THIS, OF COURSE, HAS ONLY COME TO LIGHT SINCE HER DEATH JUNE A YEAR AGO. WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THIS WILL SAID UNTIL IT BECAME PUBLIC UNTIL SHE DIED.

IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DEATH OF MR. KNIGHT ON AUGUST 22, '83 JUDGE PEEPLES SOUGHT TO TAKE OR ASSUME FULL CONTROL OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE PERSON OF MRS. KNIGHT WITHOUT MAKING A COMPLETE REVELATION OF HIS PERSONAL INTEREST AND MOTIVATION. MAYBE HE DID NOT HAVE TO DO THAT, I THOUGHT POSSIBLY HE SHOULD. KELLY INDICATED TO ME THAT AT THE TIME HE THOUGHT JUDGE PEEPLES WAS BEING CHARITABLE, WAS BEING BENEVOLENT, AND WHILE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE CASE, IT CAN HARDLY BE ARGUED THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE AFFAIRS OF MRS. KNIGHT. I AM NOT HERE SUGGESTING THAT HIS MOTIVATION IN ASSUMING CONTROL OF MRS. KNIGHT AND OF MOVING HER TO THE BARNWELL NURSING HOME WAS TO ENABLE HIM TO PROTECT THE INTEREST THAT HIS FAMILY WOULD ACQUIRE AT HER DEATH, BUT IT DOES APPEAR TO ME THAT AT A TIME SUCH AS THAT MRS. KNIGHT SHOULD HAVE HAD THE AVAILABILITY OF SOME TYPE INDEPENDENT ADVICE AND JUDGMENT CONCERNING HER PERSONAL AFFAIRS, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT SHE WAS THEN IN A POSITION OF HAVING INHERITED SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTIES FROM KELLY'S STEPFATHER INCLUDING A NUMBER OF PERSONAL ITEMS THAT BELONGED TO KELLY'S MOTHER. KELLY NEVER ONCE, LET ME EMPHASIZE THAT, MR. KELLY HAS NEVER SUGGESTED THIS TO ME. I PERSONALLY BELIEVE MRS. KNIGHT SHOULD HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECONSIDER MAKING A WILL IF THERE WAS ANY POSSIBILITY THAT SHE MIGHT WANT TO LEAVE KELLY EITHER SOME OF THESE PERSONAL ITEMS THAT BELONGED TO HIS MOTHER OR TO LEAVE HIM ANY PART OF THE ESTATE THAT SHE INHERITED FROM KELLY'S STEPFATHER. HER DECISIONS MAY HAVE BEEN TO LEAVE HER WILL AS IT WAS, BUT CLEARLY SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THIS DECISION INDEPENDENT OF ANY INFLUENCE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN EXERTED AT THAT TIME BY JUDGE PEEPLES. IF JUDGE PEEPLES DIDN'T OVERREACH MRS. KNIGHT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CERTAINLY APPEARS HE DID. AT NO TIME DID MRS. KNIGHT EVER APPROACH KELLY CONCERNING THIS LITIGATION OR THIS ALLEGED DEBT. AT NO TIME DID SHE WRITE HIM OR MAKE ANY EFFORT AT ALL TO COMMUNICATE WITH HIM CONCERNING THE MATTER. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE AFTER THE LEASE BETWEEN KNIGHT AND KELLY RAN OUT IN ABOUT 1978 THE RECORD IN THE LAWSUIT SHOWS THAT WHAT REMAINED OF THE PROPERTY WAS GIVEN TO KELLY BY KNIGHT, THEN THERE WASN'T MUCH LEFT AT THAT TIME, BUT IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT FROM 1978 THE RECORD IS COMPLETELY DEVOID OF ANYTHING RELATING TO ANY DEBT RUNNING FROM KELLY TO KNIGHT OR TO MRS. KNIGHT.

ONE OF THE JUSTICES IN ORAL ARGUMENT ASKED US ABOUT THAT, WHAT HAS BEEN DONE, WHAT'S BEEN SAID, ANY SUIT BROUGHT, NOTHING, TOTAL SILENCE, TOTAL SILENCE. WE SUBMIT NO DEBT EXISTED AS A RESULT OF THAT, AND THE SUPREME COURT ULTIMATELY AGREED WITH US.

KELLY AND MRS. KNIGHT WERE VERY GOOD FRIENDS. IT WAS HE, WHO AFTER A DILIGENT SEARCH, WAS ABLE TO FIND A NURSING HOME TO ACCEPT HER IN JULY OF '83. SHE HAD TO GO TO A NURSING HOME ABOUT A MONTH BEFORE HER HUSBAND DIED. SHE WAS IN VERY, VERY POOR SHAPE AND HE WAS TOO, BUT IT WAS KELLY AND HIS WIFE WHO FOUND THE NURSING HOME. THEY LOOKED AFTER HER INTEREST WHILE MR. KNIGHT WAS HOSPITALIZED THROUGH THIS PERIOD AND UP UNTIL AND THROUGH THE FEW DAYS FOLLOWING HIS DEATH.

MR. KELLY TOLD ME OUT IN THE HALL A LITTLE WHILE AGO THAT HE AND HIS WIFE WERE LIKE SON AND DAUGHTER TO MRS. KNIGHT. THEY WERE VERY CLOSE. THEY DID FOR EACH OTHER AND THEY DID FOR HER AND THEY LOVED HER AND SHE LOVED THEM AND THEY HAD A GOOD, CLOSE RELATIONSHIP. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT SEEMS IRONIC THAT SHE, MRS. KNIGHT, THROUGH JUDGE PEEPLES HAD NOW TURNED ON HER BENEFACTOR WITHOUT SO MUCH OF A HINT OF A LEGAL OBLIGATION IN HER FAVOR BEFORE THAT TIME.

NUMBER THREE, THE CONDUCT OF JUDGE PEEPLES THROUGHOUT THIS MATTER AND PARTICULARLY LENDING THE PRESTIGE OF HIS OFFICE TO ADVANCE HIS OWN PERSONAL FINANCIAL INTEREST IS TO ME THE OVERRIDING MATTER THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD CONSIDER. THE FIRST THING I CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION, THE DRAWING OF A WILL AND NOT LETTING YOUR CLIENT HAVE INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE WHEN THEY WANT TO NAME YOU OR YOUR FAMILY, THAT'S SERIOUS, BUT IT IS NOT SO SERIOUS--I WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY IF IT WERE FOR THAT. THE SECOND THING I MENTIONED THAT HE OVERREACHED MRS. KNIGHT AFTER MR. KNIGHT'S DEATH AND TURNED HER AGAINST KELLY WHEN IF SHE HAD BEEN IN HER RIGHT MIND, SHE WOULD NOT HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT DOING THAT, THAT IS SERIOUS, BUT I WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY IF IT WERE JUST FOR THAT, BUT THIS I WOULD, AND THIS IS WHY I AM HERE TODAY BECAUSE I BELIEVE HE HAS USED HIS OFFICE AND THE PRESTIGE OF HIS OFFICE TO FURTHER HIS OWN FINANCIAL INTEREST.

SHORTLY AFTER KNIGHT'S DEATH, AS I INDICATED BEFORE, JUDGE PEEPLES CHOSE THIS FRIEND OF HIS, DANTZLER, AN ACCOUNTANT, TO HANDLE HER AFFAIRS FOR HER. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER MRS. KNIGHT WAS COMPETENT TO HANDLE HER AFFAIRS OR NOT. DANTZLER WAS. HE IS NOT A C.P.A. BUT HE IS A BOOKKEEPER AND HE IS GOOD AT WHAT HE DOES. HE WAS ABLE TO DO IT. THEY PAID HIM TO DO IT, TO RECEIVE HER SOCIAL SECURITY INCOME, HER RENTAL INCOME AND PAY HER BILLS. I DON'T THINK IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THEM TO HIRE ANYBODY TO DO THAT BUT THAT WAS THEIR CHOICE, NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. HE WAS COMPETENT TO DO IT ALSO.

AT THAT POINT IN TIME IT APPEARS TO ME JUDGE PEEPLES SHOULD HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM ANY TYPE OF ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THESE AFFAIRS AND LEFT THE MATTER TO SOLELY TO MR. DANTZLER. WHILE IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IMPROPER FOR HIM TO POINT THIS AGREEMENT OUT TO DANTZLER OR TELL DANTZLER PURSUE THIS THING, SEE IF YOU CAN GET IT THROUGH FOR US, COLLECT THIS MONEY FOR US, I THINK IT IS A LEGITIMATE, LEGAL DEBT, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WRONG FOR HIM TO TELL DANTZLER, BUT I THINK IT WAS HIGHLY IMPROPER FOR HIM TO TAKE A PUBLIC POSITION CONCERNING THE SAME AND ADVANCING HIS OWN INTEREST. THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT TO OTHERS.

JUDGE PEEPLES LATER RETAINED COMPETENT COUNSEL IN THIS MATTER WHENEVER THE LITIGATION BEGAN IN THE PROBATE COURT, AND COMPETENT COUNSEL AND DANTZLER COULD HAVE EASILY PURSUED MRS. KNIGHT'S RIGHTS IN THE COURTS WITHOUT JUDGE PEEPLES EVER LETTING ANYBODY AT ANY TIME KNOW THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE CASE. HE REFUSED TO DO THIS AND FROM THE VERY BEGINNING INVOLVED HIMSELF DEEPLY IN THIS CONTROVERSY. HE SHOULD HAVE DISTANCED HIMSELF AS FAR FROM THE CONTROVERSY AS HE POSSIBLY COULD.

A LOT HAS BEEN SAID IN THE PRESS PARTICULARLY ABOUT JUDGE PEEPLES' USE OF HIS JUDICIAL STATIONERY. I WILL TELL YOU THAT I DON'T THINK THAT IS SO BAD AS USING HIS JUDICIAL OFFICE. CANON 2 OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT A JUDGE SHOULD NEVER LEND THE PRESTIGE OF HIS OFFICE TO ADVANCE THE PRIVATE INTEREST OF OTHERS AND SHOULD CERTAINLY NOT USE THE PRESTIGE OF HIS OFFICE TO ADVANCE HIS OWN PRIVATE INTEREST.

I GO ON AND ON THROUGH THAT AND I WOULD TELL YOU I AM GOING TO SKIP A BIT OF THAT. I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT IN MY OPINION HE APPEARED IN THIS CASE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF EXPLOITING HIS OFFICE TO ADVANCE HIS OWN INTEREST. AGAIN, UNDER THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT CANON 5, SECTION C THE FOLLOWING APPEARS: "A JUDGE SHOULD REFRAIN FROM FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS DEALINGS THAT TEND TO REFLECT ADVERSELY ON HIS IMPARTIALITY, INTERFERE WITH THE PROPER PERFORMANCE OF HIS JUDICIAL DUTIES, EXPLOIT HIS JUDICIAL POSITION OR INVOLVE HIM IN FREQUENT TRANSACTIONS WITH LAWYERS OR PERSONS LIKELY TO COME BEFORE THE COURT ON WHICH HE SERVES." THAT CANON REFERS TO SEVERAL OTHER THINGS ABOUT ACCEPTING A BEQUEST OR GIFT THAT I WON'T MENTION, BUT I SAY TO YOU THAT BECAUSE OF THE FACT HE HAD AN INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE LITIGATION, JUDGE PEEPLES' INVOLVEMENT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE KNOWN. THE INTEREST OF MRS. KNIGHT COULD HAVE BEEN PROTECTED WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST INVOLVEMENT FROM HIM. PLACING HIMSELF IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS CONTROVERSY COULD ONLY STAND TO PREJUDICE THE RIGHTS OF HIS ADVERSARY, AND I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT HE KNEW THAT, SURELY HE KNEW THAT.

IT WAS ODD TO ME IN EXAMINING THE FACTS WHICH CAVE RISE TO THIS CONTROVERSY WHY JUDGE PEEPLES THOUGHT HE COULD PREVAIL IN VIEW OF THE ALMOST OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT BOTH KELLY AND BERRY, THE ACCOUNTANT, PRESENTED TO HIM PRIOR TO ANY LEGAL ACTION BEING TAKEN. HE GOT EXPLANATIONS FROM KELLY, KELLY SENT HIM TO BERRY, THE ACCOUNTANT, AND BERRY, ACCORDING TO JUDGE PEEPLES' OWN TESTIMONY, BACKED KELLY UP. EVERYBODY TOLD HIM THIS AGREEMENT HAD BEEN RESCINDED AND HE SAID "I AM GOING TO TAKE HIM ON ANYWAY." THE RECORD SEEMS TO SHOW THAT DESPITE THIS EVIDENCE AND THE LACK OF ANY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE POSITION BEING ASSERTED BY JUDGE PEEPLES, HE PROCEEDED WITH THE LITIGATION. I CAN ONLY SURMISE HE FELT HIS PROWESS AS A MEMBER OF THE CIRCUIT BENCH WOULD ULTIMATELY CARRY THE DAY FOR HIM. FORTUNATELY, IT DID NOT.

I WOULD ALSO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE USE OF THE TERM IN THE COURT'S OPINION "OVERWHELMING." THE COURT IN ITS OPINION IN THIS CASE SAID THE EVIDENCE WAS OVERWHELMING THAT THE AGREEMENT HAD BEEN RESCINDED, OVERWHELMING. YET, IN VIEW OF THAT SAME EVIDENCE THEY CONSIDERED, HE CHOSE TO PROCEED.

ANOTHER POINT I FEEL LIKE I SHOULD MAKE IS THE THEME OF JUDGE PEEPLES' EFFORTS ALWAYS HID THE SUSPECTED MOTIVATION IN THAT HE CLAIMED HE SOUGHT PAYMENT FROM KELLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING AND IMPROVING MRS. KNIGHT'S FINANCIAL CONDITION. THERE HAVE BEEN VARIOUS ACCOUNTINGS AND STATEMENTS FILED BY MR. DANTZLER INDICATING THAT MRS. KNIGHT WAS OPERATING AT A DEFICIT, THAT HER EXPENSES EXCEEDED HER INCOME, AND JUDGE PEEPLES CONTINUALLY STATED IN HIS EFFORTS TO COLLECT FROM KELLY AND LATER AS WE WENT ALONG IN THE PROCEEDINGS, THAT SHE NEEDED THE MONEY FROM KELLY TO HELP MEET HER MONTHLY EXPENSES. MR. KNIGHT'S ESTATE CONSISTED OF ABOUT $60,000 IN INSURANCE AND CASH AND A HALF INTEREST IN THEIR HOME IN ORANGEBURG.

IF I MAY INTERJECT HERE, MR. KNIGHT INHERITED A HOME FROM MR. KELLY'S MOTHER THAT HAD BELONGED COMPLETELY TO HER. HE INHERITED THAT WHEN SHE DIED IN 1966. HE LATER GAVE MRS. KNIGHT HALF OF THAT HOME THAT HAD BELONGED TO MR. KELLY'S MOTHER. WHEN THEY BOUGHT A NEW HOME THEY WERE LIVING IN WHEN THEY BOTH DIED, THEY BOUGHT THAT IN JOINT NAMES TOGETHER, SO WHEN MR. KNIGHT DIED, HE HAD A HALF INTEREST IN THAT HOME, SO HIS ESTATE ALTOGETHER LOOKS TO ME WITHOUT CLOSER STUDY TO BE ABOUT 80 OR 85 THOUSAND DOLLARS.

MRS. KNIGHT'S ESTATE PRIOR TO HER DEATH CONSISTED OF A NUMBER OF PARCELS OF LAND IN BARNWELL COUNTY IN WHICH SHE HAD A LIFE ESTATE, AND ONE LOT AND SEVERAL BUILDINGS THAT SHE OWNED APPARENTLY IN FEE SIMPLE THAT WAS VALUED AT ABOUT $43,000. HER PERSONAL ESTATE SHOWS ALMOST $16,000 OF WHICH ABOUT $12,000 WAS IN CASH. THE APPRAISAL AND THE ACCOUNTING TO THE PROBATE COURT IN BARNWELL DO NOT REFLECT I DO NOT THINK ANY INHERITANCE FROM KNIGHT AS FAR AS PERSONAL PROPERTY IS CONCERNED. I THINK IT MAY NOW SHOW THAT, I AM NOT SURE.

SENATOR SMITH: I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT MAYBE IT WILL HELP YOU. THE COMMITTEE HAS ACCESS TO COPIES OF THE PROBATE ROLLS WITH ALL OF THAT. I MIGHT ADD WHILE I HAVE YOU STOPPED, THE FULL TRANSCRIPT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT AND BRIEFS FILED BY BOTH SIDES, THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE ARGUMENT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT ON TWO OCCASIONS, BUT PARTICULARLY THE PROBATE ROLL, WE HAVE THAT.

MR. BRYANT: I ADVISED COUNSEL ALSO DURING THIS PROCEEDING, OPPOSING COUNSEL, WHO I MIGHT TELL YOU WAS RICHARD NESS FROM BAMBERG WHO DID A VERY ABLE JOB AND WAS A WORTHY OPPONENT FOR ME DURING THIS PROCEEDING, THAT I ADVISED HIM ON I KNOW TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS THAT IF MONEY WAS SHORT, KELLY HAD INDICATED TO ME THAT HE WOULD MAKE AN EARLY ADVANCE FROM THIS MONEY OF KNIGHT'S THAT HE HELD IN THE ESTATE, AND IT HAD SOME $50,000 IN THE ESTATE. I NEVER GOT ANY REPLY TO THAT BACK. IN FACT, ONE TIME I INDICATED THAT TO MR. NESS AND HE HAD FORGOTTEN I HAD MADE THAT OFFER THE FIRST TIME. I ALSO INDICATED THAT KELLY WOULD AGREE TO A SALE OF THE REAL ESTATE. OF COURSE, KELLY'S CONSENT TO THE SALE OF THE REAL ESTATE WAS ABSOLUTELY NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE TITLE TO THAT PROPERTY VESTED IN THE TWO PEEPLES' GIRLS IMMEDIATELY UPON DEATH AND SUBSEQUENT PROBATING OF THAT WILL. SO KELLY'S CONSENT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR THAT. THEY DIDN'T CHOOSE TO ACCEPT OUR OFFER NOR DID THEY EVER CHOOSE TO SELL THE HOUSE.

THEY HAD A LOT OF EXPENSE IN CONNECTION WITH THAT LITTLE HOUSE IN ORANGEBURG THAT STAYED EMPTY THE ENTIRE TIME. IT'S EMPTY THIS MORNING. IT HAS NEVER BEEN RENTED. IT'S NEVER BEEN SOLD. THEY COULD HAVE EASILY, HAD THIS BEEN THE PROBLEM, THAT IS WHAT I AM POINTING TO NOW, HAD MONEY BEEN THE PROBLEM, THEY COULD HAVE SOLD THAT HOUSE FOR $40,000, AVOIDED THE HIGH EXPENSE, MAYBE $3,500 PER YEAR IN KEEPING THAT HOUSE AND PAYING INSURANCE AND THAT KIND OF THING, AND THEY COULD HAVE HAD A VERY LARGE TURNAROUND IN HER FINANCIAL SITUATION. THEY CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT. THEY DIDN'T EVEN CHOOSE TO RENT THE HOUSE OUT, AND IT WOULD HAVE BROUGHT A FAIRLY SIZABLE AMOUNT HAD THEY RENTED IT. CERTAINLY MORE THAN THEY WERE SEEKING TO GET FROM KELLY.

I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT JUDGE PEEPLES' INTEREST WAS NOT THIS, THAT THAT WAS NOT A PROBLEM WITH HER, THAT MAKING FINANCIAL ENDS MEET WAS NOT A PROBLEM. IF IT HAD BEEN, THEY WOULD HAVE TAKEN SOME OF THESE OTHER STEPS TO CURE THE PROBLEM. I DON'T THINK THEY WERE VERY FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE IF INCOME WAS THE PROBLEM. I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE PROBLEM. I THINK HIS MOTIVATION WAS IN INCREASING THE ESTATE HIS DAUGHTERS WOULD ULTIMATELY INHERIT, OR AT LEAST IN PRESERVING WHAT THEY HAD IN HAND AND MAKING KELLY MAKE SOME CONTRIBUTION THAT COULD BE USED FOR MRS. KNIGHT.

THE MOST DISTURBING PART OF THIS SCENARIO, HOWEVER, CAME AT TRIAL. I HAVE TOLD YOU IN THE STATEMENT THAT THIS CASE HAD BEEN ON THE DOCKET A LONG TIME, NON-JURY, AND WE GOT NOTICE THEY WANTED TO GO AHEAD WITH IT DURING A TERM OF JURY COURT AND ASKED US IF WE COULD COME OVER THERE AND HEAR IT AT NIGHT. MR. NESS AND I WERE SO ANXIOUS TO GET RID OF THE CASE WE READILY AGREED. WE WOULD HAVE HEARD IT ANY TIME. SO THE CASE DID COME TO TRIAL AT NIGHT. WE GOT THERE LATE ON A WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON I BELIEVE, AND I DIDN'T SEE JUDGE PEEPLES NOR MR. NESS. THEY WERE TRYING THIS JURY CASE AND THEY LATER RECESSED. A FEW MINUTES LATER JUDGE COTTINGHAM CAME OUT TO SPEAK TO ME. HE AND I HAD SERVED IN THE LEGISLATURE TOGETHER AND I THINK THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAD SEEN HIM IN MANY, MANY YEARS AND HE CAME OUT TO SPEAK, AND THEN HE WENT BACK IN CHAMBERS. I INQUIRED AS TO WHERE JUDGE PEEPLES OR WHERE MY OPPOSING COUNSEL WAS, WORRYING MAYBE I GOT MY DAYS OR NIGHTS MIXED UP, AND ONE OF THE BAILIFFS INDICATED TO ME THAT THEY WERE BACK IN THE BACK TALKING TO JUDGE COTTINGHAM. OF COURSE, THAT WAS BACK IN JUDGE PEEPLES' OFFICE IN THE BARNWELL COUNTY COURTHOUSE.

THEY SUBSEQUENTLY CAME BACK OUT, AND WHEN THE BAILIFF GAVE THE "ALL RISE" SOUND, HERE COMES JUDGE PEEPLES ALONG WITH JUDGE COTTINGHAM AND WE STOOD FOR JUDGE PEEPLES AND JUDGE COTTINGHAM. I COULD HAVE HANDLED THAT, THAT WASN'T ANY REAL BIG THING TO ME, BUT MY CLIENT ABSOLUTELY COULD NOT. YOU CAN'T IMAGINE THE DEVASTATING IMPRESSION THIS HAD ON HIM WHEN HE SAW HIS OPPONENT COME OUT FIGURATIVELY SPEAKING ARM IN ARM WITH THE TRIAL JUDGE. WE HAD LONG FEARED THAT JUDGE PEEPLES WOULD ATTEMPT TO USE HIS INFLUENCE AND OFFICE IN THIS CASE AND HERE WE SAW IT IN THE OPEN FOR THE FIRST TIME. I WILL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, HIS INSOLENCE EVEN UNNERVED ME TO SOME EXTENT, AND AN UNEASINESS SET IN ABOUT A CASE THAT I THOUGHT I WAS ABOUT TO LOCK UP AND FILE AWAY.

I THOUGHT IT WAS HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR JUDGE PEEPLES TO CREATE SUCH AN APPEARANCE, AND WHILE I AM NOT AT ALL AWARE OF THE TOPIC OF THEIR CONVERSATION BACK IN CHAMBERS OR WHY JUDGE PEEPLES CHOSE TO MEET WITH HIM BACK THERE IN HIS OWN CHAMBERS, YOU MUST KNOW THAT MY CLIENT'S IMAGINATION RAN WILD AT A TIME LIKE THAT. IF JUDGE PEEPLES WAS DETERMINED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS LITIGATION, DETERMINED TO LET IT BE KNOWN HE WAS IN IT, THEN I THINK HE SHOULD HAVE ACTED LIKE A NORMAL LITIGANT AND REMAINED OUT THERE IN THE COURTROOM RATHER THAN HAVING ANY CONTACT WITH THE TRIAL JUDGE, PARTICULARLY IN HIS OWN COURTHOUSE IN HIS OWN TOWN IN HIS OWN OFFICE.

JUDGE PEEPLES' FINAL ACTIONS AT TRIAL ARE WITHOUT QUESTION TO ME THE MOST DEVASTATING, IF THERE COULD BE ANYTHING MORE DEVASTATING THAN A JUDGE USING HIS JUDGESHIP TO ADVANCE HIS OWN PERSONAL INTEREST. I RECEIVED AND HAD KNOWN THROUGHOUT, AND WE THOUGHT MRS. KNIGHT HAD A WILL EITHER LEAVING HER ESTATE TO JUDGE PEEPLES OR THE CHILDREN. OF COURSE, THAT WILL WAS CONFIDENTIAL AND WE WERE NOT PRIVY TO THAT. WHILE HE WAS TESTIFYING, AND MAY I ADD THAT JUDGE PEEPLES' TESTIMONY WAS IRRELEVANT TO THIS CONTROVERSY BUT HE TESTIFIED ANYWAY AND I FAILED TO MAKE A MOTION TO STRIKE ALL OF HIS TESTIMONY AT THE END AND I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN MAD AT MYSELF FOR NOT DOING THAT. I DID ATTEMPT TO EXCLUDE IT FROM THE RECORD OF THE SUPREME COURT BUT JUDGE COTTINGHAM THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED, BUT IF YOU DID READ THE RECORD, I AM SURE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TIME TO DO THAT, HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE FACTS OF THE CASE OCCURRED IN 1972 AND THE ONLY WITNESSES REALLY IN THE CASE CAME FROM OUR SIDE, BUT HE TESTIFIED ANYWAY, BUT I FIGURED IF HE WAS TESTIFYING THAT IT WAS ENCUMBENT UPON ME TO TRY TO SHOW HE HAD SOME BIAS. NORMALLY SPEAKING A JUDGE IN A TRIAL IN COURT CAN ATTEMPT TO SHOW THAT A WITNESS IS BIASED. A LAY WITNESS ON THE STAND YOU GENERALLY HAVE TO LEAD THEM INTO IT. I THOUGHT JUDGE PEEPLES WOULD HAVE VOLUNTARILY DIVULGED THE FACT THAT HE MIGHT HAVE SOME BIAS, BUT HE CHOSE NOT TO DO THIS, SO I PROCEEDED TO QUESTION HIM ABOUT IT AND I CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CRITICAL PART OF THE TRANSCRIPT WHICH MR. SMITH SAYS IS IN YOUR POSSESSION, BUT I ASKED HIM: "JUDGE PEEPLES, DO YOU HAVE ANY INTEREST IN THIS MATTER OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT YOU ARE FRIENDS WITH MRS. PAULINE KNIGHT?" AND HIS ANSWER "NO, SIR, JUST TRYING TO HELP THIS LADY WHO DOESN'T HAVE ANY KINFOLKS OTHER THAN THIRD OR FOURTH COUSINS," AND THEN AS YOU CAN SEE, I PROCEEDED TO ASK HIM ABOUT THE WILL AND HE SAID HE HAD DRAWN A LOT OF WILLS FOR HER, HE KNEW WHERE THE LAST ONE WAS AND HE KNEW WHAT IT CONTAINED OF COURSE, THE LAST ONE LEFT THE ENTIRE ESTATE AFTER THE DEATH OF MRS. KNIGHT DIRECTLY TO HIS TWO CHILDREN.

UPON MR. NESS' OBJECTION I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO FURTHER QUESTION ON THE ISSUE OF CONFIDENTIALITY. SUBSEQUENTLY, AS I HAVE TOLD YOU, MRS. KNIGHT DIED AND HER WILL WAS ADMITTED TO PROBATE AND IT READS AS I SAID. THE FACT THAT ANY RECOVERY HAD IN THIS CASE WOULD PASS, IF NOT EXPENDED BY MRS. KNIGHT, TO THESE GIRLS, CLEARLY MAKES HIS STATEMENTS FALSE. THEY WERE FALSE. THAT WAS FALSE SWEARING. IN MY OPINION IT WAS FALSE SWEARING. HAD THAT JUDGMENT BEEN UPHELD, IT WAS FOR ABOUT $26,000, TODAY IT WOULD BE WITH INTEREST WORTH SOMEWHERE IN THE LOW TO MID-THIRTIES. I ESTIMATED $35,000. MRS. KNIGHT'S ENTIRE ESTATE AFTER SHE GETS EVERYTHING FROM MR. KNIGHT IS GOING TO BE IN THE $150,000 RANGE. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN $185,000 HAD THEY BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN THIS PROCEEDING.

I TELL YOU THAT YOU CAN LISTEN TO ANY EXPLANATION YOU WILL OF THE TESTIMONY THAT HE GAVE THAT NIGHT IN THE BARNWELL COUNTY COURTHOUSE, BUT I SUBMIT TO YOU HERE AND NOW THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE REASONABLE AND LOGICAL EXPLANATION OF THAT TESTIMONY, AND THAT IS THAT IT WAS COMPLETELY UNTRUE. IT WAS FALSE TESTIMONY. HE KNEW IT WAS FALSE. HE HAS BEEN A LAWYER AND A JUDGE LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW WHAT IS TRUE AND WHAT IS FALSE. HE TOLD YOU A MOMENT AGO THAT HE IS THE SECOND RANKING SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGE IN THIS STATE HAVING SERVED FOR 13 YEARS. HE KNOWS WHAT IS THE TRUTH. HE CAN DECIPHER THE TRUTH FROM WHAT IS FALSE AND HE KNEW WHAT I WAS AFTER WHEN I ASKED THAT QUESTION, HE ABSOLUTELY KNEW IT.

HERE SOMEONE ELSE MAY ASSERT THAT THE MONEY MAY HAVE BEEN USED BY MRS. KNIGHT DURING HER LIFETIME OR THAT HE HAD NO LEGAL INTEREST, ONLY A BENEFICIAL INTEREST, OR IT WAS NOT HIS INTEREST, IT WAS HIS DAUGHTERS' INTEREST, OR HE MAY OFFER ANOTHER EXPLANATION, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR HIM, BUT I SAY TO YOU NOW AFTER HE HAD PLACED HIS LEFT HAND ON THE BIBLE AS HE DID JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO AND RAISED HIS RIGHT HAND TO GOD AND SWORE TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT HE DID NOT DO THAT. HOW HE THOUGHT HE WOULD GET AWAY WITH THAT DEFIES MY COMPREHENSION. THE BASIC INGREDIENTS OF CHARACTER AND TRUTH ARE HONESTY. THE VERY CORNERSTONE OF THE LAW WHICH HE SWORE TO UPHELD WHEN HE WAS FIRST ADMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW, WHEN HE WAS SWORN IN AS A CIRCUIT JUDGE AND WHICH HE WOULD REAFFIRM UNDER OATH IF HE ACHIEVES THE GOAL HE NOW SEEKS IS TRUTH AND HONESTY UNTEMPERED AND UNADULTERATED. CAN WE ALLOW SUCH A CAVALIER ATTITUDE FOR THIS FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENT OF JUSTICE TO BECOME A PART OF OUR FINAL APPELLATE PROCESS? OF COURSE, WE CAN'T. OUR LAWS WOULD EVEN DEAL HARSHLY WITH A LAY PERSON UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. WHAT WILL THEY DO WITH A SITTING CIRCUIT JUDGE?

THE FIFTH AND LAST COMPLAINT OR ALLEGATION THAT I MAKE IS THAT JUDGE PEEPLES QUALIFIED AS EXECUTOR OF MRS. KNIGHT'S ESTATE. THE CANON OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, CANON 5 IN THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, AS PLAIN AS DAY SAYS A JUDGE SHOULD NOT SERVE AS THE EXECUTOR OF AN ESTATE EXCEPT FOR THE ESTATE OF A PERSON IN HIS FAMILY OR WITH WHOM HE HAS A FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP, AND NOT EVEN THEN IF IT IS LIKELY THAT IT WILL TURN OUT TO BE IMPROPER.

AFTER I HAD MADE A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL BASED ON THE FACT THAT JUDGE PEEPLES HAD REFUSED TO REVEAL HIS BIAS IN THIS CASE, A NEW TRIAL BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, I FAILED IN THIS, YOU HAVE TO HAVE CERTAIN GROUNDS TO DO THAT, FOREMOST OF WHICH IS WITH THE RESULT THAT IF THE CASE WERE TRIED AGAIN WOULD IT BE DIFFERENT, AND I ADMITTED TO THE SUPREME COURT IT PROBABLY WOULD NOT, BUT I DID MAKE A NEW TRIAL MOTION BEFORE THEM AND THESE MATTERS CAME OUT. JUDGE PEEPLES IN RESPONSE TO MY MOTION FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DEFENDING HIS QUALIFYING AND HIS ULTIMATE SERVICE AS EXECUTOR. WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS AWARE THAT HE MIGHT BE VIOLATING THIS CANON OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, I DO NOT KNOW, BUT OBVIOUSLY HE THOUGHT THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE ABOUT IT AND INDICATED IN HIS AFFIDAVIT THAT HE HAD RESOLVED THAT QUESTION IN HIS FAVOR BY SUBMITTING THE QUESTION TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT WHO GAVE HIM PERMISSION OR SAID TO THE EFFECT THAT IT WOULD BE ALL RIGHT AS LONG AS HE DIDN'T RECEIVE A COMMISSION FOR SERVING. I WON'T COMMENT ON WHETHER OR NOT APPROVAL OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF SUCH A REQUEST WOULD TEND TO OBVIATE THE CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE ETHICAL RULE, AND I WON'T COMMENT ON THE FACT THAT JUDGE PEEPLES DISCUSSED WITH THE CHIEF JUSTICE A MATTER RELATED TO ANOTHER MATTER PENDING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY TALKED ABOUT AND HIS QUESTIONS COULD CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN IN THE ABSTRACT, BUT I WOULD SAY IN NOT ACCEPTING A COMMISSION, IT IN EFFECT WOULD BE NOT TAKING MONEY OUT OF HIS GIRLS' POCKETS AND PUTTING IT IN HIS. I DON'T THINK THAT IS OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE.

THE REASON FOR THE RULE IS THAT A JUDGE SHOULD REFRAIN FROM ANY TYPE OF FIDUCIARY ACTIVITY INVOLVING THE FINANCES OF OTHERS, PARTICULARLY IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS IS BECAUSE HE MAY FIND HIMSELF IN COURT. HE MAY FIND HIMSELF AT ODDS WITH LAWYERS IN COURT. THIS CASE WAS IN HIS COURT. IT CAME FROM THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT TO THE SUPREME COURT. THERE WAS PENDING LITIGATION IN THAT COURT OVER WHICH JUDGE PEEPLES IS THE RESIDENT JUDGE. THAT IS REASON ENOUGH RIGHT THERE, AND HERE HE IS A LITIGANT IN THE CASE. HE WAS SUBSTITUTED AS A PARTY FOR MRS. KNIGHT AFTER HER DEATH, SUBSTITUTED AS EXECUTOR. THAT IS THE REASON FOR THAT. CLEARLY HE SHOWED HERE A TOTAL DISREGARD FOR ONE OF THE CANONS OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT THAT HARDLY SEEMS TO ME TO BE IN NEED OF INTERPRETATION. AGAIN, THIS TRANSGRESSION WOULD NOT HAVE ME HERE TODAY. I WOULDN'T HAVE COME HAD THIS BEEN HIS ONLY TRANSGRESSION. I THINK IT'S WRONG. I THINK IT SHOWS HIS DISREGARD FOR WHAT THE RULES ARE, BUT I DO NOT THINK I WOULD HAVE TAKEN THIS STEP OF COMING HERE TO OPPOSE HIS CANDIDACY BECAUSE OF THAT.

AS I TOLD YOU AT THE BEGINNING, THIS IS A VERY UNPLEASANT TASK WHICH ALL OF THESE EVENTS HAVE FORCED ON ME. I HAVE NEVER BEEN IN ANYTHING LIKE THIS BEFORE AND I HAVE BEEN IN SOME HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL SITUATIONS, BUT I EITHER HAD THE CHOICE TO APPEAR HERE TODAY AND BE HEARD ON THESE MATTERS AS I HAVE OR TO DO NOTHING AND CONSIDER THE CASE CLOSED. I AM NEITHER A MORALIST, NOR DO I WISH BY MY ACTIONS TO IMPOSE UPON JUDGE PEEPLES AND HIS FAMILY ANY HARDSHIPS WHICH ARE UNWARRANTED OR UNDESERVED, BUT JUDGE PEEPLES ASPIRES TO SIT ON THE BENCH AND WEAR THE ROBES OF THE HIGHEST JUDICIARY OF THIS STATE, AND ALONG WITH THAT ASPIRATION HE NECESSARILY MUST SUBMIT HIS CHARACTER AND HIS QUALIFICATIONS TO THE CLOSEST POSSIBLE SCRUTINY. SINCE I WAS FIRST ADMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW IN THIS STATE IN APRIL OF 1961, MORE THAN A QUARTER OF A CENTURY AGO, BY MY COUNT ONLY 14 LAWYERS HAVE SERVED ON OUR SUPREME COURT. IT IS A POSITION THAT MANY COVET AND, AS YOU CAN SEE, FEW EVER ACHIEVE. IT SHOULD, THEREFORE, AS IT HAS IN THE PAST, BE RESERVED FOR NOT ONLY THE BRIGHTEST AND THE BEST BUT FOR ALSO THOSE WHOSE CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY AND REGARD FOR THE RULE OF LAW ARE BEYOND REPROACH.

IT IS AN AWESOME RESPONSIBILITY TO SERVE IN THE LEGISLATURE OF THIS STATE OR ANY STATE WHERE THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF THE PEOPLE YOU SERVE RESTS SQUARELY ON YOUR SHOULDERS. YOU ON THIS COMMITTEE HAVE IN ADDITION THE DELIGATE TASK OF PASSING ON THE QUALIFICATIONS OF PERSONS SEEKING JUDICIAL OFFICE. THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH CAROLINA HAVE NO OTHER SUBSTANTIAL SAFEGUARD STANDING BETWEEN THEM AND THE CANDIDATE AND THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AS A WHOLE WHO ELECT THESE PEOPLE.

I AM NOT GOING TO USE THIS FORUM TO EXPRESS VIEWS ALONG THIS LINE, BUT THIS LEGISLATURE WITH THE TREMENDOUS INFUSION OF NEW JUDGESHIPS AND NEW JUDGES MUST SOON REALIZE THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO MAINTAIN A HIGH QUALITY IN OUR JUDICIARY, THE PEOPLE DESERVE A MORE EXPANSIVE INVESTIGATIVE AND SCREENING FORCE, MORE INPUT FROM THOSE OUTSIDE THE LEGISLATURE MUST BE HAD AND THOSE WHO ULTIMATELY MAKE THE CHOICE, WHETHER IT IS THIS LEGISLATURE OR MEMBERS OF SOME MERIT SELECTION COMMISSION, MUST BE MADE AS IMMUNE FROM POLITICAL APPROACH AS A JUROR IS FROM A LAWYER DURING THE TRIAL OF A CASE. UNTIL THEN, HOWEVER, WE MUST MAKE DO WITH WHAT WE HAVE, BUT THERE ARE FAR, FAR TOO MANY JUDGESHIPS TO FILL WITH THE SCREENING TOOLS WE CURRENTLY HAVE AT OUR DISPOSAL. I CAN'T OVEREMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS.

I PRESENT THESE REMARKS AND MAKE THIS APPEARANCE BEFORE YOU TODAY WITH THE COMPLETE AWARENESS THAT I AM NO DOUBT CREATING A CLIMATE OF ILL-WILL NOT ONLY BETWEEN JUDGE PEEPLES AND MYSELF BUT BETWEEN HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS AS WELL. I REGRET THAT VERY MUCH. AS I INDICATED TO YOU, HE AND I HAVE BEEN FRIENDS FOR MANY YEARS. LAWYERS IN GENERAL HAVE MORE OF THEIR SHARE OF THIS BY THE VERY NATURE OF THEIR ADVERSARIAL VOCATION, BUT I STRONGLY FEEL THAT THE ACTIONS AND THE COURSE OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY HIM IN THIS MATTER FROM THE FIRST TIME HE DREW MRS. KNIGHT'S WILL BACK IN 1974 UP UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THIS CASE HAS SHOWN A CLEAR AND CONSCIOUS DISREGARD AND DISDAIN FOR THE TRUTH, THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS, FOR THE EXTRAORDINARY RULES AND RESTRICTIONS WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO JUDGES. THEY CAN'T ACT LIKE ORDINARY CITIZENS IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, AND FOR THE KIND OF HIGH STANDARDS AND IDEALS WHICH ARE ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL FOR ONE WHO SEEKS TO SERVE, NOT ONLY ON THE SUPREME COURT OF THIS STATE, BUT ON THE BENCH OF THE CIRCUIT COURT WHERE HE NOW SERVES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR SMITH:

Q     YOU HAVE ENDED YOUR STATEMENT WITH THE SLAP AT THE PROCESS BY WHICH WE USE TO SCREEN JUDGES, DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ELSE THIS COMMITTEE CAN DO?

A     NO, SIR. I THINK THIS COMMITTEE ITSELF IS DOING THE BEST IT CAN, BUT I THINK THE LEGISLATURE ITSELF IS GOING TO HAVE TO FORFEIT SOME OF THIS RESPONSIBILITY TO SOME TYPE BODY, AND YOUR BAR ASSOCIATION HAS STUDY AFTER STUDY AFTER STUDY UNDERWAY ABOUT THIS, AND THE LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE WILLING TO GIVE UP SOME OF THE AUTHORITY IN THIS SELECTION PROCESS.

Q     YOU HAPPEN TO BE CHAIRMAN OF THAT COMMITTEE.

A     SUBCOMMITTEE.

Q     YOU THINK THE BAR ASSOCIATION IS ANY BETTER QUALIFIED THAN THIS COMMITTEE TO PASS ON QUALIFICATIONS OF JUDGES?

A     NO, SIR, BUT I THINK THE BAR AND THE PEOPLE FROM THE LEGISLATURE CAN COME TOGETHER TO CREATE A COMMISSION. I DIDN'T MEAN TO IMPLY THE BAR SHOULD DO THE PICKING. I THINK THE LEGISLATURE OUGHT TO HAVE A STRONG VOICE IN IT BUT I THINK THEY OUGHT TO SHARE THAT VOICE WITH OTHER KNOWLEDGEABLE VOICES ALSO.

Q     ARE YOU AWARE THAT I INVITED THE BAR ASSOCIATION TO COME BE A PART OF THIS PROCESS AND THEY SAID THEY WERE TOO BUSY, THEY HAD A MEETING?

A     NO, SIR. MS. EVE MOREDOCK STACEY IS RIGHT HERE AND SHE HAS BEEN HERE ALL MORNING--

Q     DELIGHTED TO HAVE HER TOO.

A     ---AND SHE IS THE PRIMARY MOVER WITH THE BAR IN THIS AREA.

Q     LET ME ASSURE YOU THAT I HAVE READ, AND SO HAVE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THE ENTIRE RECORD. I RESENT A LITTLE BIT, SIR, YOUR INDICATION--YOU KNOW, YOU WANT US TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE PEEPLES BUT THEN YOU TELL US WE ARE NOT DOING OUR JOB WHICH PUTS US IN A POSITION WE CAN'T WIN WHATEVER WE DO. I HAVE READ THE ENTIRE RECORD FROM FRONT TO BACK ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. I THINK OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE HAVE TOO. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU SAID THAT THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU CLAIM WAS FALSE SWEARING WAS IMMATERIAL TO THE CASE, ADDED NOTHING TO THE CASE AND WAS FAVORABLE TO YOU. YOU SAID IT WAS FAVORABLE TO YOU IN YOUR ARGUMENT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT THE SECOND TIME. YOU SAID IT WAS IMMATERIAL TO THE CASE HERE TODAY IN YOUR STATEMENT AND ALSO BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT THE FIRST TIME, IS THAT CORRECT?

A     WELL, FIRST OF ALL, MR. CHAIRMAN, I DIDN'T SAY THIS COMMITTEE WAS NOT DOING ITS JOB. I THINK YOU ARE DOING THE JOB THE ABSOLUTE BEST YOU CAN WITH THE TOOLS YOU HAVE. I THINK YOU ARE DOING AN EXCELLENT JOB.

Q     WE HAVE TO DO BETTER THAN THAT AND I LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING YOUR SUGGESTIONS ABOUT HOW WE CAN DO IT BETTER.

A     I DID NOT SAY THAT THE COMMITTEE WAS NOT DOING ITS JOB. SECONDLY, JUDGE PEEPLES' ENTIRE TESTIMONY WAS NOT REALLY RELEVANT TO THE CASE. IN FACT, WHAT I SAID WAS THAT IN HIS OVERALL TESTIMONY HE PRETTY MUCH BACKED UP THE POSITION THAT MY PEOPLE HAD TAKEN WHEN HE TESTIFIED THAT KELLY TESTIFIED IN COURT THAT NIGHT EXACTLY THE WAY HE HAD TOLD HIM THE YEAR BEFORE, AND THAT WHEN HE WENT TO SEE THE ACCOUNTANT BERRY, BERRY SAID THE SAME THING IN COURT THAT HE HAD TOLD HIM PERSONALLY A YEAR OR SO BEFORE THAT. I DID NOT SAY THAT PART WHERE I SAY IT WAS FALSE WAS IMMATERIAL, BUT HIS ENTIRE TESTIFYING WAS IMMATERIAL.

Q     YOU SAY THE FALSE SWEARING HE DID HAD TO DO WHEN HE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION "DO YOU HAVE ANY INTEREST IN THIS MATTER OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT YOU ARE A FRIEND OF MRS. PAULINE KNIGHT," THAT IS HIS FALSE SWEARING, HIS ANSWER THERE WHEN HE SAID "NO, SIR"?

A     YES, SIR, THAT IS IT.

Q     DID YOU PURSUE THAT WITH HIM?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     WHAT DID YOU DO?

A     YOU MEAN WHEN?

Q     YOU'VE GOT A WITNESS FRANKLY AS WE SAY IN THE COUNTRY THAT YOU THINK IS TELLING A LIE AND YOU ARE THE LAWYER ON THE OTHER SIDE, NOW WHAT IS YOUR DUTY?

A     YOU MEAN TURN HIM INTO THE SOLICITOR?

Q     DID YOU?

A     NO, SIR.

Q     DID YOU IN THE TRIAL? CAN'T YOU CROSS-EXAMINE HIM ABOUT THOSE THINGS?

A     I WAS STOPPED BY THE JUDGE UPON OBJECTION.

Q     YOU WERE STOPPED BY THE JUDGE ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT A MAN COULD TELL SOMEBODY WHAT IS IN A WILL AND THE PERSON NOT YET DEAD? THE JUDGE DIDN'T STOP YOU FROM ASKING WHETHER OR NOT JUDGE PEEPLES LIED, DID HE?

A     YOU MEAN I SHOULD HAVE THEN TURNED AND ASKED HIM--I HAD TO BE IN A POSITION THEN, MR. CHAIRMAN, TO PROVE THAT HE LIED IF I WAS GOING TO ASK HIM IF HE LIED. I HAD TO LAY SOME FOUNDATION AND I COULDN'T PROVE IT WITHOUT THAT WILL.

Q     YOU COULDN'T PROVE IT?

A     WITHOUT THAT WILL I COULDN'T.

Q     IT WAS NOT A LIE AT THAT POINT, WAS IT?

A     I THINK IT WAS CLEARLY A LIE. HE KNEW IT WAS A LIE.

Q     YOU THINK HE HAD AN OBLIGATION TO TELL THE COURT WHAT WAS IN SOMEBODY'S WILL AND THE PERSON IS NOT DEAD?

A     I THINK HE HAD AN OBLIGATION TO TRUTHFULLY ANSWER MY QUESTION. WHETHER OR NOT HE WOULD HAVE VIOLATED A CONFIDENCE BY REVEALING THE CONTENTS OF THAT WILL, I HAVE NEVER PASSED ON THAT QUESTION. THAT MAY HAVE BEEN A VIOLATION OF THAT, BUT I THINK HE HAD A GREATER OBLIGATION TO TELL THE TRUTH. HE HAD JUST SWORN THAT HE WOULD TELL THE TRUTH BEFORE HE TOOK THE WITNESS STAND.

SENATOR SMITH: THAT IS ALL I HAVE AT THIS TIME. ANYONE FROM THE COMMITTEE?

    EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE MCEACHIN:

Q     BEGINNING ON PAGE 124 OF THE TRANSCRIPT WHICH YOU HAVE AS COLLOQUY BETWEEN YOU AND JUDGE PEEPLES, YOU HAVE EXCERPTS OF THAT ON PAGE 14 WHICH SENATOR SMITH JUST ASKED YOU ABOUT. MY QUESTION WHEN I READ THIS LAST NIGHT AND JOTTED MY QUESTIONS DOWN, DO YOU THINK THAT JUDGE PEEPLES PERJURED HIMSELF?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     WHAT DID JUDGE PEEPLES' TESTIMONY ADD TO THIS CASE OF KNIGHT ET AL THAT WAS HEARD BEFORE JUDGE COTTINGHAM?

A     NOTHING, AND THAT WAS ONE OF MY POINTS, MR. MCEACHIN, IS I THINK HE TESTIFIED IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE AN APPEARANCE IN THE CASE BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THAT MIGHT SWING THE DAY, BUT HE WASN'T WILLING TO GO FAR ENOUGH TO LET JUDGE COTTINGHAM KNOW THAT HE HAD A PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THAT THE JUDGMENT RECOVERED MIGHT ULTIMATELY PASS TO HIS FAMILY.

REP. MCEACHIN: THANK YOU, SIR.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MARTIN:

Q     I NOTE THAT YOU HAVE CANDIDLY SAID THAT JUDGE PEEPLES' TESTIMONY WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE AT HAND, THAT IS YOUR TESTIMONY?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     DIDN'T YOU MOVE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT FOR A NEW TRIAL AFTER DISCOVERING EVIDENCE AS TO THE CREDIBILITY OF JUDGE PEEPLES WHEN ALL HE TESTIFIED TO WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT?

A     THE ACTUAL BASIS, SENATOR MARTIN, FOR THE MOTION WAS HE DID NOT REVEAL THAT HE HAD A PERSONAL INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE LITIGATION, AND HAD HE REVEALED IT, THE OUTCOME MIGHT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT, BUT I ULTIMATELY CONFESSED TO JUSTICE GREGORY THAT I DID NOT REALLY THINK THE OUTCOME WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT IN THE EVENT THAT THE CASE WAS SENT BACK FOR ANOTHER TRIAL.

Q     ACTUALLY YOU SAY HE TALKED WITH JUDGE COTTINGHAM, JUDGE COTTINGHAM PRESIDED, AREN'T YOU SAYING THAT JUDGE COTTINGHAM TO SOME DEGREE--IMPUGNING THE INTEGRITY OF JUDGE COTTINGHAM THAT HE IS GOING TO DISREGARD THE EVIDENCE JUST BECAUSE JUDGE PEEPLES WAS INVOLVED IN THE CASE?

A     I DID NOT SAY THAT, SENATOR MARTIN.

Q     DOESN'T IT IMPLY THAT?

A     YOU MAY DRAW WHATEVER INFERENCE YOU THINK THAT YOU WILL ABOUT THAT.

Q     WHAT OTHER INFERENCE CAN I IMPLY?

A     THAT YOU DRAW THAT INFERENCE IF YOU WILL.

Q     YOU SAY THIS CASE WAS OVERWHELMINGLY IN YOUR CLIENT'S FAVOR?

A     NO, SIR. THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT.

Q     YOU QUOTED THEM AS SAYING THAT?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     I BELIEVE IN READING JUDGE HARWELL'S DISSENT THAT THE DECEASED MR. KNIGHT MADE A WILL JUST SHORTLY BEFORE HIS DEATH BY AN ORANGEBURG LAWYER, IS THAT CORRECT?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     AND IN THAT WILL HE STATED THAT YOUR CLIENT OWED HIM MONEY UNDER THAT AGREEMENT?

A     NO, SIR, HE DIDN'T.

Q     WHAT WAS THAT JUDGE HARWELL ALLUDED TO?

A     JUDGE HARWELL ALLUDED TO THE FACT IN A WILL MADE IN 1983 THAT HE REITERATED A BEQUEST THAT HE HAD MADE IN A WILL MADE IN 1972 THAT PRETTY MUCH SUPPORTED THE FACT THAT HE WANTED KELLY TO HAVE THIS PROPERTY AND PAY $300 A MONTH TO MRS. KNIGHT, HIS WIDOW.

Q     SO HE REITERATED THE FACT THAT ON A PREVIOUS WILL HE HAD MADE A BEQUEST OF THIS MONEY UNDER THE SALES CONTRACT?

A     WE THOUGHT THAT WAS STRICTLY A STENOGRAPHIC ERROR AND THAT IT WAS COPIED FROM ANOTHER WILL THAT WAS MADE IN 1972, AND OBVIOUSLY THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT THOUGHT SO TOO. I DID NOT AGREE WITH THE LOGIC OF JUDGE HARWELL'S DISSENT, BUT, OF COURSE, IT MUST BE REMEMBERED IT WAS A DISSENT.

Q     THERE WAS A LEGITIMATE CONFLICT WHEN THERE WAS A DIVIDED OPINION?

A     I WOULDN'T AGREE WITH THAT, NO, SIR.

Q     YOUR QUOTING OF THESE CANONS OF ETHICS, E.C. 5-5, A LAWYER SHOULD NOT SUGGEST TO HIS CLIENT THAT A GIFT BE MADE TO HIMSELF OR FOR HIS BENEFIT, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT JUDGE PEEPLES MADE ANY SUCH SUGGESTION TO THIS NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR LADY OF HIS WHEN HE MADE THAT WILL?

A     NO, SIR, AND I DIDN'T ACCUSE HIM OF THAT.

Q     WELL, YOU PUT IT IN HERE FOR SOME REASON.

A     I PUT IN THE ENTIRE ETHICAL CONSIDERATION.

Q     AND THE NEXT ETHICAL THING THAT YOU PUT IN HERE IS E.C. 5-6 WHERE A LAWYER SHOULD NOT CONSCIOUSLY INFLUENCE A CLIENT TO NAME HIM AS EXECUTOR, TRUSTEE OR LAWYER IN ANY INSTRUMENT. DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION THAT JUDGE PEEPLES CONSCIOUSLY INFLUENCED THIS CLIENT TO NAME HIM?

A     NO, SIR.

Q     WELL, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE VIOLATED EITHER OF THESE CANONS. YOU JUST SAY IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE HE MIGHT HAVE, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT HE DID, DO YOU?

A     WHAT HE VIOLATED IN THE CANONS, SENATOR, WAS THAT HE DID NOT HAVE HER SEEK AND OBTAIN INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE CONCERNING THE MAKING OF THAT WILL AND THE NAMING OF THOSE BENEFICIARIES AND OF THE ESTATE'S PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES, THAT IS THE VIOLATION.

Q     DO YOU KNOW THAT?

A     YES, SIR, BECAUSE AN INDEPENDENT ATTORNEY DID NOT DRAW IT. HE DREW IT, JUDGE PEEPLES DREW THE WILL, HE SAID HE DID.

Q     DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT SHE INSISTED ON HIM DRAWING THE WILL?

A     OF COURSE NOT, NO, SIR, BUT I WOULDN'T ALLOW A CLIENT OF MINE TO INSIST TO THE POINT THAT I WOULD VIOLATE THE CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND I AM SURE YOU WOULDN'T EITHER.

Q     YOU THINK YOU WOULD BE VIOLATING THE CANONS OF ETHICS IF YOUR CLIENT SAYS "I AM AWARE OF ALL THAT BUT I STILL WANT YOU TO DRAW MY WILL AND I WANT TO MAKE YOU THE EXECUTOR," WOULD THAT BE VIOLATING THE CANON?

A     ABSOLUTELY TO THE FIRST PART OF YOUR QUESTION. POSSIBLY NOT WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND. I THINK IF YOU MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR THE NATURE OF THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE'S OBLIGATIONS IN HANDLING AN ESTATE AND YOUR CLIENT SAYS "I STILL WANT YOU TO BE THE EXECUTOR," I THINK YOU HAVE MADE A CLEAR REVELATION AND I THINK YOU ARE PROBABLY ALL RIGHT. I HAVE DONE THAT AND I AM SURE YOU PROBABLY HAVE, BUT AS TO THE FIRST PART, IF SOMEBODY TELLS YOU "SENATOR MARTIN, I WANT TO LEAVE EVERYTHING I HAVE TO YOUR CHILDREN," AND YOU LET THAT WILL BE DRAWN BY YOU OR ANYBODY IN YOUR OFFICE, I THINK IT'S A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE CANONS OF ETHICS. I THINK YOU HAVE TO SEE THAT PERSON GETS OUT OF YOUR OFFICE AND INTO THE HANDS AND UNDER THE ADVICE OF ANOTHER LAWYER.

Q     WELL, I AM ANXIOUS TO HEAR FROM JUDGE PEEPLES AS TO HOW CLOSE HE WAS OR HIS FAMILY WAS TO THIS LADY. I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING HIM. I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR SMITH:

Q     ON THAT POINT, MR. BRYANT, ON PAGE 17 AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE WHEN YOU CITE THE CANON, CANON 5, SUBSECTION D. YOUR TYPEWRITTEN COPY HERE SAYS FAMILY. I BELIEVE THE CORRECT WORD IN THAT CANON IS FAMILIAL AND I BELIEVE YOU HAVE USED FAMILIAL IN YOUR PRESENTATION?

A     PARDON ME, MR. CHAIRMAN, IT CERTAINLY DOES, AND THAT MAY TURN OUT TO BE FAIRLY MEANINGFUL. IF THERE WAS A FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MRS. KNIGHT AND JUDGE PEEPLES, THEN THAT WOULD TEND TO DIMINISH THE EXTENT TO WHICH I THINK HE HAS VIOLATED THIS.

Q     YOU DON'T CONCEDE THAT THAT EXISTS, DO YOU?

A     NO, SIR. I INSIST THAT IT DID NOT.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS:

Q     LET ME BEGIN MY SAYING THAT YOU HAVE DRAWN A VERY WELL WRITTEN AND COMPELLING DOCUMENT AND MADE AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION OF YOUR POSITION. I STILL THINK WE NEED SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS AND IN SEVERAL AREAS I STILL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. ON PAGE 17 YOU MAKE MENTION OF AN AFFIDAVIT FILED BY JUDGE PEEPLES AND YOU MAKE REFERENCE TO A LETTER OF PERMISSION FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE FOR JUDGE PEEPLES TO SERVE AS THE EXECUTOR, IS THAT LETTER A PART OF THE RECORD?

A     I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LETTER. IF I DID, THAT IS ERRONEOUS. THE AFFIDAVIT IS A PART OF THE RECORD OF THE SUPREME COURT AND I DON'T THINK THAT EITHER THE AFFIDAVIT OR MY STATEMENT SAID THAT PERMISSION WAS GRANTED BY LETTER. I JUST SAID HE HAD RECEIVED PERMISSION FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

Q     I MISUNDERSTOOD.

A     IF I SAID LETTER, THERE IS NO LETTER THAT I KNOW OF.

REP. ROGERS: MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD REQUEST AT THIS TIME THAT AFFIDAVIT BE OBTAINED. I DIDN'T SEE IT.

SENATOR SMITH: IT WAS NOT IN WHAT WAS PRESENTED.

JUDGE PEEPLES: I HAVE COPIES OF IT.

SENATOR SMITH: IS THERE A LETTER, JUDGE PEEPLES?

JUDGE PEEPLES: YES. I HAVE COPIES OF THAT. WOULD YOU LIKE THEM AT THIS TIME?

REP. ROGERS: I DON'T NEED IT AT THIS MOMENT. I WANT IT IN THE RECORD SO WE CAN SEE IT BEFORE WE MAKE ANY FINDING ON THIS MATTER. (SEE NOTE.)

Q     THE OTHER AREA I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT, MR. BRYANT, AND IT DOES TROUBLE ME, YOU AND I WERE ADMITTED TO THE BAR AT THE SAME TIME AND A GOOD MANY YEARS BACK, IT IS MY PRACTICE, AS I KNOW IT IS THE PRACTICE OF MOST LAWYERS, NOT TO EVER DRAW A WILL IN WHICH YOU OR YOUR FAMILY BENEFITS OR IN WHICH YOU SERVE AS AN EXECUTOR UNLESS YOU USE THE MOST STRINGENT SAFEGUARDS AND, IN FACT, ADVISE THE CLIENT THEY SHOULD CONSULT SOMEONE ELSE. IS THAT THE PRACTICE IN YOUR CIRCUIT AND IN THE CIRCUIT THAT JUDGE PEEPLES SERVES?

A     I DON'T KNOW, MR. ROGERS, I DON'T KNOW. IT IS CERTAINLY THE PRACTICE WITHIN MY FIRM AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN, AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE I DON'T THINK I HAVE EVER SEEN ANYBODY IN THE ORANGEBURG AREA DO THAT. NOW THAT IS WITH REGARD TO MAKING A FAMILY MEMBER A BENEFICIARY.

Q     ISN'T IT IN FACT A PRACTICE NOT TO DRAW A WILL FOR A FAMILY MEMBER?

A     YES.

Q     I KNOW I HAVE ALWAYS REFUSED TO DO SO.

A     THAT IS NOT THE PRACTICE IN TOTO IN MY CIRCUIT, BUT MANY OF THE LAWYERS DO THAT. I HAVE DRAWN A WILL FOR MY WIFE BUT I HAVE HAD SOME COUSIN RELATIVES THAT I HAVE REFUSED TO DRAW FOR WHEN THERE WAS SOME INDICATION THEY MIGHT WANT TO LEAVE ME SOMETHING. I HATED TO DO IT, BUT I DID, BUT, AGAIN, MR. ROGERS, AS I INDICATED, THIS OFFENSE DOESN'T BRING ME HERE TODAY. THAT OFFENSE DOESN'T BRING ME HERE TODAY.

SENATOR SMITH: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     WAS ANY REASON EVER GIVEN AS TO WHY THE CASE WAS MOVED TO BARNWELL?

A     THERE IS NO RECORD ON THAT, SENATOR MCCONNELL, BUT IT WAS A DISTURBING PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO ME. THE CASE WAS IN ORANGEBURG AND MR. NESS AS I INDICATED TO YOU WAS A WORTHY OPPONENT. HE WAS A DIFFICULT PERSON TO HANDLE. HE IS A GOOD LAWYER, A VERY FINE YOUNG LAWYER. IT TOOK--IT DIDN'T TAKE ME BECAUSE I AM NOT A GOOD LAWYER YET, BUT WHEN I HAD PRACTICED THE LENGTH OF PRACTICE HE HAS I COULD HARDLY FIND THE COURTHOUSE AND I FIND HIM TO BE A VERY GOOD LAWYER, BUT HE FILED THIS MOTION AND SUPPORTED IT WITH A NUMBER OF AFFIDAVITS FROM PERSONS WHO APPEARED TO BE POTENTIAL WITNESSES IN THE CASE, NONE OF WHOM, IN FACT, APPEARED AS WITNESSES OTHER THAN JUDGE PEEPLES AND MR. DANTZLER. MR. DANTZLER WAS AN ORANGEBURG COUNTY CITIZEN AND I THOUGHT I HAD SUED CITIZENS OF DIFFERING COUNTIES AND, THEREFORE, I COULD CHOOSE MY FORUM. MR. DANTZLER FILED AN AFFIDAVIT WAIVING HIS RIGHTS AS AN ORANGEBURG CITIZEN AND INDICATING THAT I WAS LEFT WITH MRS. KNIGHT. THE TRIAL JUDGE WHO HEARD THE MOTION, AND I STAND TO BE CORRECTED HERE BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING THAT I HAVE REVIEWED AND I AM RELYING SOLELY ON MY MEMORY FROM THAT DAY IN COURT, BUT THE TRIAL JUDGE TURNED TO MR. NESS AFTER ARGUMENTS WERE MADE AND INDICATED HE THOUGHT THIS WAS AN ORANGEBURG COUNTY CASE, THAT THIS LADY WAS JUST IN A NURSING HOME IN BARNWELL, OR EVEN IF SHE WAS A REAL PARTY--OR A RESIDENT OF BARNWELL COUNTY, THE REAL PARTY WAS MR. DANTZLER AND HE WAS AN ORANGEBURG COUNTY RESIDENT AND UNLESS MR. NESS WAS ABLE TO PRODUCE SOME OTHER AUTHORITY, HE WAS GOING TO LEAVE THE CASE IN ORANGEBURG COUNTY. SEVERAL WEEKS AFTER THAT I RECEIVED AN ORDER TRANSFERRING THE CASE TO BARNWELL COUNTY, AND THERE WAS NO OTHER REASON THAN THAT.

Q     THE AFFIDAVITS THAT WERE PUT IN, WAS THERE AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE JUDGE ABOUT THE VENUE?

A     JUDGE PEEPLES?

Q     YES.

A     YES, BUT ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT IT WOULD BE--I DO NOT REMEMBER TO WHAT IT RELATED BECAUSE THE MOTION WAS MADE ON THE GROUNDS THAT SHE WAS A RESIDENT OF BARNWELL COUNTY. IT WAS NOT MADE ON THE GROUNDS OF CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES OR JUSTICE I DO NOT BELIEVE, BUT I REMEMBER THE TENOR OF SOME OF THOSE AFFIDAVITS WAS THAT IT WOULD BE MORE CONVENIENT FOR IT TO BE TRANSFERRED TO BARNWELL COUNTY. THAT WAS THE NATURE OF JUDGE PEEPLES' AFFIDAVIT. MRS. PEEPLES FILED AN AFFIDAVIT, A DOCTOR FROM THE NURSING HOME, A NURSE FROM THE NURSING HOME, ALL SAID IT WOULD BE MORE CONVENIENT. ONE OF THE AFFIDAVITS, POSSIBLY MORE, RELATED TO MRS. KNIGHT'S INTENTION TO BE A RESIDENT OF BARNWELL, THAT SHE WANTED TO RETURN TO BARNWELL TO HOME, SO THERE MAY BE AN INTERMIXING OF REASONS, BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU HAVE TO MAKE YOUR MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE ON EACH GROUND STANDING ALONE AND POSSIBLY NOT EVEN AT THE SAME TIME.

Q     DO I UNDERSTAND THEN THAT THE BULK OF THOSE AFFIDAVITS WERE FROM PEOPLE ABOUT THE CONVENIENCE TO MRS. KNIGHT?

A     NO, THE CONVENIENCE TO THEMSELVES.

Q     IN THE CASE OF MRS. KNIGHT, DID SHE APPEAR AT THE TRIAL?

A     NO, SIR.

Q     AND THE OTHER FOLKS, THESE AFFIDAVITS, DID THEY APPEAR?

A     NO, SIR. MR. DANTZLER AND JUDGE PEEPLES WERE THE ONLY WITNESSES THAT APPEARED FOR THE OTHER SIDE. I STAND TO BE CORRECTED, SOMEBODY MAY HAVE BEEN IN THE COURTROOM THAT I DIDN'T KNOW, BUT I AM ALMOST SURE BOTH MR. NESS AND JUDGE PEEPLES WOULD SUBSTANTIATE THAT.

Q     CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, I SHOULD SAY, HOW DID YOU FIND OUT THAT THE VENUE HAD BEEN CHANGED, WAS IT BY A WRITTEN ORDER?

A     A WRITTEN ORDER, YES, SIR, THAT I RECEIVED IN THE MAIL.

Q     DO YOU HAVE COPIES OF THAT WRITTEN ORDER AND THE AFFIDAVIT--

A     YES, SIR.

Q     ---THAT WAS INTRODUCED ON THAT?

A     YES, SIR.

SENATOR MCCONNELL: MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO GET A COPY OF THAT.

SENATOR SMITH: DO YOU HAVE IT WITH YOU?

A     YES, SIR. IT MAY TAKE ME A LITTLE WHILE TO FIND THAT BUT I CAN PRESENT THAT BEFORE THE END OF THE SESSION.

Q     I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND ALL THE FACTUAL SITUATIONS HERE. IN YOUR OPINION WHO WERE THE NECESSARY WITNESSES TO PROVE THE ADVERSARY'S CASE OR TO PRESENT THEIR CASE?

A     THEY HAD NO WITNESSES. THEIR CASE DEALT SOLELY WITH THE VALIDITY OF THIS WRITTEN AGREEMENT AND THESE WILLS THAT WERE INTRODUCED. THEY WERE GOING TO EITHER WIN OR LOSE ON THE BASIS OF THOSE STANDING AGREEMENTS. THEY HAD NO VERBAL TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE TO INTRODUCE THAT WOULD SUPPORT THAT. MR. DANTZLER TESTIFIED OVER MY OBJECTION. HE FIRST STARTED TESTIFYING CONCERNING HOW MUCH IT TOOK TO KEEP THIS LADY IN THE NURSING HOME. THEY HAD PREPARED CHARTS ABOUT THAT AND IT WAS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE CASE. JUDGE COTTINGHAM SUSTAINED ME ON THAT. LATER HE ALLOWED DANTZLER TO TESTIFY CONCERNING WHAT THE AMOUNT OF THE JUDGMENT OUGHT TO BE IF THEY WON. THAT WAS IRRELEVANT, THAT WAS WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE TRIAL COURT TO DETERMINE BUT HE TESTIFIED TO THAT, AND I THOUGHT THAT JUDGE PEEPLES' TESTIMONY--I MAY BE WRONG, JUDGE PEEPLES MAY VIEW IT DIFFERENTLY--I THOUGHT I ALMOST HAD HIS ENTIRE TESTIMONY THROWN OUT WHEN WE MOVED TO SETTLE THE RECORD ON APPEAL BUT JUDGE COTTINGHAM THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BEST TO LEAVE IT ALL IN, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WAS RELEVANT AT ALL. I THINK THEY WOULD AGREE THAT THEIR CASE WAS BASED ON THE WRITTEN DOCUMENTS.

Q     I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND ALL THE FACTS, THE WILL THAT JUDGE PEEPLES LATER BECAME THE EXECUTOR OF, THAT WILL WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO ANY PUBLIC REVIEW OR YOU HAD NOT SEEN THAT WILL?

A     NO, SIR. IT HAD BEEN SEEN BY SOMEONE WHO REPORTED TO MY CLIENT WHAT ITS CONTENTS WERE AND MY CLIENT REPORTED IT TO ME. I DIDN'T KNOW AS A FACT WHEN I WAS EXAMINING JUDGE PEEPLES WHAT THAT WILL SAID, AND IT COULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. SOME FAMILY FRIEND HAD SEEN A COPY OF THAT WILL AT ONE TIME AND HAD RELATED TO WILL KELLY THAT SHE LEFT EVERYTHING TO JUDGE PEEPLES' DAUGHTERS AFTER MR. KNIGHT'S DEATH.

SENATOR MCCONNELL: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

SENATOR SMITH: THANK YOU, SIR.

A     THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.

SENATOR SMITH: IF YOU WILL LOOK ROUND FOR THOSE AFFIDAVITS, AND WHEN YOU GET THEM, GIVE US A SIGNAL. WE HAVE ANOTHER WITNESS TO TESTIFY. JUDGE PEEPLES, WOULD YOU RATHER WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE CONCLUDED BOTH?

JUDGE PEEPLES: COULD WE TAKE MR. HEATH UP AND HAVE MY REPLY TO BOTH?

SENATOR SMITH: YES.

(LUNCH BREAK - 1:00 - 2:00.)

SENATOR SMITH: MR. BRYANT, EARLIER WE ASKED YOU ABOUT THOSE AFFIDAVITS AND YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD THEM IN YOUR FILE?

MR. BRYANT: I DO NOT. I WILL BE GLAD TO FURNISH THOSE. THEY ARE AT OUR OFFICE. I WILL BE GLAD TO GET THEM HERE TOMORROW MORNING FOR MRS. SATTERWHITE, OR IF THE COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEM, I CAN HAVE THEM BROUGHT UP HERE.

SENATOR SMITH: IF WE COULD GET THAT ACCOMPLISHED.

MR. ROGERS: MR. CHAIRMAN, I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW THAT I AM GOING TO OBJECT TO ANY DECISION TODAY. I WANT THE TRANSCRIPT AND I WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT BEFORE I VOTE ON ANY OF THESE CONTESTED RACES.

SENATOR SMITH: IN THAT CASE, MR. BRYANT, IF YOU WOULD SEND THEM UP TOMORROW.

MR. BRYANT: I CAN HAVE THEM IN MRS. SATTERWHITE'S HANDS BY 9:30. I HAVE SOMEONE COMING UP HERE.

JUDGE PEEPLES: WE CAN HAVE THEM THIS AFTERNOON IF YOU LIKE.

SENATOR MARTIN: AS I WAS LEAVING MR. HEATH, HE IS FROM MY COUNTY, AND HE TOLD ME HE HAD BEEN AT MEETINGS ALL WEEK AND WAS WANTING TO GET AWAY. I TOLD HIM HE IS PERFECTLY WELCOME TO STAY BUT IF HE WANTED TO GO, I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION WE READ INTO THE RECORD. HE INDICATED TO ME AT THAT TIME HE WAS GOING TO STAY. I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAS CHANGED HIS MIND, BUT THAT WAS OUR CONVERSATION AS I LEFT FOR LUNCH. WHEN I LEFT, I GOT THE IMPRESSION HE WANTED TO COME BACK, SO HE MIGHT HAVE CHANGED HIS MIND.

SENATOR SMITH: WHY DON'T WE PROCEED AND ASK THE CLERK IF HE WOULD READ THE LETTER INTO THE RECORD AND THEN IF HE SHOWS UP, HE CAN MAKE ANY COMMENTS. LET ME SAY THAT HE CAME TO ME AND ASKED--HE DID NOT HAVE A COPY AND HE WANTED A COPY AND WE GAVE HIM A COPY AND THAT WAS AT 2 JUST BEFORE YOU SAW HIM. ANY OBJECTION? IF NOT, I WILL LET THE CLERK READ IT.

BY THE CLERK: THERE ARE THREE LETTERS. I WILL READ THE COVER LETTER FIRST. IT'S FROM CHARLIE H. HEATH INDICATING THE ADDRESS IN WINNSBORO. "SENATOR THOMAS E. SMITH. DEAR SENATOR SMITH: I CHARLIE H. HEATH, JR. WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A HEARING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEE AN INCIDENT WITH THE HONORABLE RODNEY A. PEEPLES. SINCERELY, CHARLIE H. HEATH, JR." NOTARIZED.

THE NEXT LETTER IS DATED JANUARY 20, 1986 DIRECTED TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION, HONORABLE I.S. LEEVY JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, BOX 11039, COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA 29211. "DEAR SIR: I AM WRITING YOU AND THE ASSOCIATION CONCERNING AN INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED IN THE GENERAL SESSION COURT ON DECEMBER 3, 1985. THE HONORABLE RODNEY A. PEEPLES, JUDGE OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT PRESIDING. I AM A CITIZEN AND TAXPAYER OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. HAVING SERVED AS A MAGISTRATE FOR EIGHT YEARS IN FAIRFIELD COUNTY I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE LAWS AND PROCEEDING OF THE COURTS. AS I UNDERSTAND THE LAW, THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA UNDER AUTHORITY--

SENATOR SMITH: MR. HEATH HAS ARRIVED. WE WERE READING YOUR LETTER. WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ IT YOURSELF?

MR. HEATH: I WOULD.

SENATOR SMITH: WE ARE DOWN TO THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE SECOND LETTER. I WILL LET YOU GET YOUR GLASSES OUT, I KNOW HOW THAT IS. WE ARE TO THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE SECOND LETTER, SIR.

MR. HEATH: IF IT PLEASES THE COMMITTEE, I WOULD LIKE TO READ THIS LETTER CONCERNING THE HONORABLE JUDGE RODNEY A. PEEPLES, SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION, I.S. LEEVY JOHNSON PRESIDENT, BOX 11039, COLUMBIA SOUTH CAROLINA. "DEAR SIR: I AM WRITING TO YOU AND THE ASSOCIATION CONCERNING THE INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED IN GENERAL SESSION COURT ON DECEMBER 3RD, 1985, THE HONORABLE RODNEY A. PEEPLES, JUDGE OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT PRESIDING. FIRST, I AM A CITIZEN AND TAXPAYER OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAVING SERVED AS A MAGISTRATE FOR EIGHT YEARS IN FAIRFIELD COUNTY I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE LAWS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURTS, AND AS I UNDERSTAND THE LAW OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE SUPREME COURT--

SENATOR SMITH: EXCUSE ME. I DID NOT ADMINISTER THE OATH TO YOU.

CHARLIE H. HEATH, JR., FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY SENATOR SMITH, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR SMITH:

Q     THANK YOU, SIR. YOU MAY CONTINUE.

A     "AS I UNDERSTAND THE LAW, THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA UNDER AUTHORITY OF SECTION 4, ARTICLE 4, OF THE CONSTITUTION INTER ALIA ONE THE PURPOSE IS TO REQUIRE THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF ETHICAL AND PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND TO UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND HONOR OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION.

"I HAVE NEVER BEEN SO HUMILIATED AND EMBARRASSED BEFORE IN MY LIFE AS I WAS ON DECEMBER 3RD, 1985 IN OPEN COURT BY JUDGE PEEPLES OR ANYONE ELSE, IN THE PREJUDICE AND RACIAL-LIKE MANNER IN THE WAY I WAS TREATED. THE GIST OF THE MATTER, I HAD A YOUNG MAN OUT ON BOND THAT FAILED TO SHOW UP IN COURT THE FIRST DAY, WHICH WAS ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 2ND, 1985 AT 10 O'CLOCK A.M. THE YOUNG MAN CLAIMED HIS ATTORNEY INFORMED HIM THAT HE DID NOT HAVE TO BE PRESENT UNTIL THE NEXT DAY OF COURT. I WAS NOT PRESENT MYSELF AND WAS LATER INFORMED THAT IF I DIDN'T HAVE HIM THERE BY 2:30, JUDGE PEEPLES WOULD ESTREAT THE BOND. I WENT TO THE COURTHOUSE AND CONFERRED WITH HONORABLE JOHN JUSTICE, SOLICITOR OF THE NO. SIX CIRCUIT COMPRISING FAIRFIELD, CHESTER AND LANCASTER COUNTIES AND SENATOR JOHN A. MARTIN" -- THAT IS HIM SITTING RIGHT OVER THERE. "THEY TOLD ME THE JUDGE INFORMED THEM THAT IF I COULD NOT GET HIM BY 2:30 P.M. WHEN COURT BEGAN FOR THE EVENING SESSION, I HAD BETTER HAVE HIM IN COURT THE NEXT MORNING AT 10 O'CLOCK A.M. THE YOUNG MAN WAS WORKING OUT OF TOWN. I TRIED MY BEST TO LOCATE HIM THAT DAY AND BRING HIM TO COURT RATHER THAN TAKE A CHANCE UNTIL THE NEXT DAY. I WAS WAITING WHEN HE CAME FROM WORK AND BROUGHT HIM TO COURT THAT EVENING BEFORE COURT ADJOURNED. HE WAS TRIED, FINED AND SENTENCED. THE NEXT DAY I APPEARED IN THE COURT AS A SPECTATOR AND WHEN JUDGE PEEPLES SAW ME THIS IS WHAT HE SAID: COME UP HERE FELLAR. AREN'T YOU THE ONE THAT DID NOT HAVE THAT BOY"--THAT MAN IS 22 YEARS--"THAT BOY IN COURT YESTERDAY MORNING? MY ANSWER WAS YES, YOUR HONOR, BUT I HAD HIM HERE THAT EVENING EVEN THOUGH YOU GAVE ME UNTIL THE NEXT MORNING. THEN HE ASKED ME HOW MUCH WAS I WILLING TO GIVE THE COURT. I SMILED AND TOLD HIM I DIDN'T HAVE ANY MONEY BECAUSE I HAD JUST PURCHASED $1700 WORTH OF PROPERTY THAT WAS SOLD FOR DELINQUENT TAXES. THE JUDGE FROWNED AND SAID LOOK HOW HE IS DRESSED, A LONG LEATHER COAT"--I BROUGHT THIS EXHIBIT A FOR THE SCREENING COMMITTEE, IT WASN'T COOL ENOUGH TO WEAR BUT BROUGHT IT--"LOOK AT THOSE SHOES, THAT SUIT, THOSE SHOES, LOOK AT THAT GOLD CHAIN AROUND HIS NECK"--IT'S BRASS BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOLD--"THEN HE ASKED THE CLERK HOW MUCH IT COST THE JURORS FOR THEIR MEALS MONDAY AND TODAY, WHICH WAS TUESDAY, AND HER ANSWER WAS $102, YOUR HONOR. HE SAID PAY THE CLERK $102. YOU HAVE 15 MINUTES TO PAY IT. I PAID IT AND SHE GAVE ME A RECEIPT.

IT WAS HARD FOR ME TO SUBDUE MY PASSION BUT I KEPT MY PEACE WITH THE ATTITUDE OF THIS JUDGE I WAS AFRAID HE WOULD CHARGE ME WITH CONTEMPT OF COURT. THERE WERE FOUR OR FIVE OTHER PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T HAVE THEIR PEOPLE IN COURT THAT WAS OUT ON BOND. ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WERE WHITE AND THEY WERE NOT TREATED THE WAY I WAS. IF THEY HAD BEEN, I STILL WOULD NOT HAVE LIKED IT BUT I WOULD HAVE FELT BETTER.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT THIS OR WHETHER ANYTHING CAN BE DONE? I DON'T QUESTION HIS AUTHORITY TO DO THIS, BUT I DO QUESTION THE RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A WRITTEN LETTER OF APOLOGY FROM JUDGE PEEPLES, IF SO, I MAY BE ABLE TO FORGIVE HIM BUT I SHALL NEVER FORGET HIM. I HOPE YOUR MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION WILL TAKE THIS LETTER UNDER CONSIDERATION AND GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY."

NOW I ALSO WHEN I SENT I.S. THIS LETTER, HE SENT JUDGE PEEPLES A COPY OF IT, AND HE SENT THE ETHICAL COMMITTEE A COPY OF IT. AFTER JUDGE PEEPLES RECEIVED HIS COPY HE CALLED MY HOUSE ONE DAY. IN FACT, HE CALLED SEVERAL TIMES. I WAS OUT OF TOWN. IN FACT, I WAS IN COLUMBIA. WHEN I GOT HOME, MY WIFE SAID "JUDGE PEEPLES CALLED YOU AND SAID CALL HIM BACK AND CALL HIM COLLECT." I THOUGHT ABOUT HOW JUDGE PEEPLES LIKED ME AND I SAID "I AM NOT GOING TO CALL." SHE SAID "CALL HIM BUT DON'T CALL HIM COLLECT." SO I CALLED HIM AND HE SAID "YOU ARE A HARD MAN TO KEEP UP WITH. I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO CATCH UP WITH YOU. I HAVE CALLED YOU TWICE." I SAID "YES, SIR. I HAPPENED TO BE IN COLUMBIA ON SOME BUSINESS." HE SAID "I JUST WANTED TO CALL AND APOLOGIZE. I GOT THE LETTER. I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WAS OFFENDED BY WHAT I SAID. I WAS COMMENTING AND CONGRATULATING YOU ON HOW YOU WERE DRESSED." I SAID "OH, MAN, I CAN'T BUY THAT. YOU CAN'T TELL ME YOU WERE COMPLIMENTING ME ON HOW I WAS DRESSED AND THEN COME DOWN ON ME AND TELL ME TO PAY $102 FOR MEALS." I SAID "NO, I CAN'T BUY THAT," AND I SAID "ANOTHER THING, JUDGE, WHEN YOU WAS TWO YEARS OLD, I WAS OVERSEAS FIGHTING, TRYING TO DEFEND PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND YOU ARE JUST ONE YEAR OLDER THAN MY OLDEST DAUGHTER AND YOU SAID COME UP HERE FELLAR. I AM A MAN 64 YEARS OLD. DON'T LOOK AT ME AS A BLACK MAN OR WHITE MAN OR LAWYER, DOCTOR, INDIAN CHIEF, LOOK AT ME AS A MAN. MY PARENTS ALWAYS TAUGHT ME TO RESPECT YOUR ELDERS, IT DIDN'T MATTER WHAT COLOR THEY WAS, TO RESPECT YOUR ELDERS, THAT IS THE WAY I WAS RAISED UP IN A CHRISTIAN FAMILY. YOU COULD HAVE SAID COME UP HERE MR. HEATH OR MAN OR SOMETHING BUT COME UP HERE FELLAR." I SAID "NO, JUDGE," I SAID "YOU WASN'T COMPLIMENTING ME ON THE WAY I WAS DRESSED," AND I WILL TELL YOU, COMMITTEE, I TRY TO BE A CHRISTIAN MAN. THE WAY JUDGE PEEPLES TREATED ME, I SAID I WAS GOING TO MEET HIM DOWN THERE WHEN HE CAME OUT OF THE CHAMBERS AND ASK HIM TO APOLOGIZE TO ME PERSONALLY THEN, AND IF HE HADN'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED, BUT I AM GLAD I DIDN'T. I SAID "THE LORD WILL WORK THINGS OUT."

THE ETHICAL COMMITTEE, THEY SAW THE REPORT--EXCUSE ME A MINUTE--WHEN I.S. SENT THEM A COPY OF IT, THIS IS THEIR REPORT. "PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL, MR. CHARLIE HEATH, JR., POST OFFICE BOX 182, WINNSBORO, SOUTH CAROLINA, DEAR MR. HEATH: THIS SHALL ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A COPY OF A LETTER DATED JANUARY 20, 1986 ADDRESSED TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION CONCERNING YOUR GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE HONORABLE RODNEY A. PEEPLES, CIRCUIT JUDGE.

THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY YOU CONCERNING JUDGE PEEPLES, ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THIS OFFICE THROUGH INQUIRY, WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS AT ITS NEXT MEETING FOR APPROPRIATE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS. YOU WILL BE INFORMED OF THE BOARD'S DECISION IN THIS MATTER."

I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THE LETTER THEY SENT ME BUT THEIR DECISION--THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. OF COURSE, I SENT THEM A FOLLOW-UP LETTER AND I NEVER DID HEAR FROM THEM, BUT I ASKED THEM THE INFORMATION THEY WANTED, WHERE COULD THEY GET THE BETTER INFORMATION IF FROM ME OR THE PEOPLE IN THE COURT. THE COURT WAS FULL OF PEOPLE. THE STENOGRAPHER WAS TAKING, JUST LIKE THIS YOUNG LADY HERE, THEY COULD HAVE EASILY GOT THE RECORD FROM THEM. SO THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE SCREENING COMMITTEE IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

I JUST WANT YOU TO TAKE THESE THINGS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IF YOU THINK YOU NEED A MAN LIKE JUDGE PEEPLES ON THE HIGHEST COURT, THE SUPREME COURT IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, IF THAT IS THE KIND OF MAN YOU WANT TO REPRESENT US ON THE SUPREME COURT, THEN I HOPE THE SCREENING COMMITTEE WILL OKAY HIM AND THE LEGISLATURE VOTE FOR HIM. THANK YOU.

SENATOR SMITH: ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE? (NO RESPONSE.) THANK YOU, SIR. THOSE ARE THE TWO INDIVIDUALS THAT CAME FORWARD TO BE HEARD. JUDGE PEEPLES, WOULD YOU LIKE A CHANCE TO RESPOND?

JUDGE PEEPLES: PLEASE.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR SMITH:

Q     YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN SWORN, SIR.

A     YES, SIR. AT THIS TIME I WOULD ASK TO BE ALLOWED TO PASS OUT MY RESPONSE TO MR. HEATH'S LETTER AS WELL AS THE RULING OF THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE. (SEE NOTE.)

MR. HEATH: I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT THE HONORABLE JUDGE, BUT MAY I HAVE A COPY OF THAT? IF IT'S A RESPONSE, I DIDN'T GET NO WRITTEN RESPONSE FROM HIM. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT HIS RESPONSE WAS OTHER THAN OVER THE TELEPHONE.

A     MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE, LET ME PLEASE FIRST RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT OF MR. HEATH. I UNDERSTAND HIS LETTER OF JANUARY 20 OF 1986 WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE THAT WAS SENT TO EACH SCREENING MEMBER AND, OF COURSE, YOU HAVE HEARD HIS READING OF THE LETTER HERE TODAY AND ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. THIS IS MY FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO YOU OTHER THAN MY RESPONSE TO THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE.

WHEN I RECEIVED A COPY OF HIS LETTER IN JANUARY OF 1986, I NOTED THAT IT HAD BEEN WRITTEN TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BAR WITH A COPY TO THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION, SO I THEN CALLED I BELIEVE THE GENTLEMAN'S NAME IS GARY BAKER PERHAPS, I CALLED AND ASKED HIM IF HE WOULD PLEASE FORWARD THAT LETTER TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS. THEY DID AND I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, MR. MABRY BINNICKER, ASKING ME TO RESPOND TO MR. HEATH'S LETTER, WHICH I DID, AND MY LETTER TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKAGE DATED FEBRUARY 10, 1986. I WILL NOT ATTEMPT TO READ IT VERBATIM, RATHER PARAPHRASE IT, BUT UPON RECEIVING THAT LETTER I PROMPTLY CALLED MS. DORCAS ANDERSON WHO IS CLERK OF COURT FOR THE FAIRFIELD COUNTY TO ASK HER OF HER RECOLLECTION OF THE PROCEEDING. SHE ADVISED ME SHE WAS SATISFIED THERE WERE NO EFFORTS TO EMBARRASS MR. HEATH AND, MORE PARTICULARLY, THERE WERE NO OTHER DEFENDANTS WHO FAILED TO SHOW FOR THAT TERM OF COURT OTHER THAN THE ONE DEFENDANT, THAT IS, THE CLIENT, I BELIEVE HIS NAME WAS GAITHERS, SO I DIDN'T FAIL TO ESTREAT A BOND ON ANYBODY ELSE. THERE WAS ONLY ONE NO SHOW AND THAT WAS HIS CLIENT.

I ASKED MS. DORCAS IF SHE WOULD PLEASE CHECK HER RECORDS, AS WELL AS TO VERIFY HER INFORMATION OR RECOLLECTION WITH SOLICITOR JUSTICE. BEAR IN MIND THIS WAS IN JANUARY OF '86 AND THE TERM OF COURT HAD BEEN SOME LESS THAN 60 DAYS PREVIOUSLY. SHE CALLED ME BACK LATER THAT SAME DAY TO ADVISE THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE CONCURRED IN HER CONCLUSION. I ATTEMPTED TO GET IN TOUCH WITH SHERIFF MONTGOMERY, HE IS ALWAYS IN HIS COAT AND TIE IN COURT, TO ASK HIM IF HE HAD A RECOLLECTION, AND I SUGGESTED TO THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE THAT PERHAPS THEY COULD CALL THE COURT REPORTER, I GAVE THE NAME OF THE REPORTER TO THEM, AND MAYBE SHE HAD A TRANSCRIPT OF EXACTLY WHAT WAS SAID, AND SHE HAD NOT MADE A TRANSCRIPT OF THAT PROCEEDING, NO RECORD WAS EVER HAD OF THAT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

I WAS FRANKLY SHOCKED TO RECEIVE SUCH A LETTER AS I HAD HAD A VERY PLEASANT STAY IN FAIRFIELD COUNTY THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 2ND. WE HAD DISPOSED OF ALL THE CASES, COMPLETED THE COURT WORK BY MID-AFTERNOON OF WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4 OF '85. ALL OF THE COURT OFFICIALS AND ATTORNEYS WERE EXTREMELY COOPERATIVE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THAT AFTERNOON AS I WAS LEAVING COURT I HAD A PLEASANT AND CONGENIAL CONVERSATION WITH CHARLIE HEATH ON WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE. IT'S MY RECOLLECTION THAT SHERIFF MONTGOMERY AND THE PROBATION OFFICER, JOE ALBERT, WERE PRESENT WHEN THAT CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE. I AGAIN BRAGGED TO CHARLIE ON THE ATTRACTIVE AND EXPENSIVE CLOTHES HE WAS WEARING. HE TOLD ME OF HIS RESPECT FOR MY FORMER LAW PARTNER, SOL BLATT, SR., AND HE TOLD ME ABOUT THE VARIOUS MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY, WHERE THEY WORKED, WHERE THEY LIVED, AND WE SHOOK HANDS AS WE WERE PARTING. HE EVEN LAUGHED AND JOKED ABOUT "FEEDING THE JURY." I HAD NO IDEA THAT HE HARBORED ANY ILL-WILL TOWARD ME.

BEING CONCERNED ABOUT THE MATTER, WHEN I RECEIVED THE LETTER THAT DAY, I CALLED MR. HEATH AT HIS HOME AND HE WASN'T THERE AND I LEFT WORD FOR HIS WIFE TO ASK HIM TO PLEASE CALL ME COLLECT. HE DID CALL ME. I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS COLLECT. IF HE SAID HE DIDN'T CALL COLLECT, I ACCEPT THAT. OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WAS CORDIAL. I TOLD HIM I HAD CHECKED AND THERE WERE NO OTHER WHITE PEOPLE ON BOND WHO DIDN'T SHOW FOR COURT, THAT HE HAD A BARGAIN WHICH HE HIMSELF AGREED BY PAYING THE $102 WHEN HE WAS LIABLE ON A $2,500 BOND. HE HAD BEEN PAID $250 TO POST BOND AND I COULD HAVE ESTREATED THE WHOLE $2,500 IF I HAD WANTED TO, AND I TOLD HIM HE WAS IN ERROR TO CONCLUDE THAT I TRIED TO EMBARRASS HIM AS THAT CERTAINLY WAS NOT MY INTENTION AND IN MY OPINION WAS NOT DONE.

I FURTHER TOLD HIM THAT IF HE STILL FELT HE HAD A VALID COMPLAINT, HE SHOULD FORWARD IT TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS. HE THEN TOLD ME HE WAS NO LONGER UPSET BUT HE DID WANT ME TO SEND HIM A WRITTEN APOLOGY. I HAVE NOT SENT HIM A WRITTEN APOLOGY BECAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE ONE IS OWED TO HIM. FOR SOME YEARS NOW IT'S BEEN MY CUSTOM IN GENERAL SESSIONS COURT THROUGHOUT THE STATE TO REQUIRE ALL THE DEFENDANTS TO APPEAR ON MONDAY MORNING AT 10 O'CLOCK AND HAVE A ROLL CALL. THERE IS A PURPOSE FOR THAT, I WAIT AND BRING THE PETIT JURY IN TUESDAY MORNING AND WE CAN GO DOWN THAT LIST AND FIND OUT IF A LAWYER HAS A CONFLICT WITH A CASE IN FEDERAL COURT, FAMILY COURT, WHETHER A HIGHWAY PATROLMAN IS IN BREATHALYZER SCHOOL AND THE CASE HAS TO BE CONTINUED, TO TRY TO DISCERN WHAT WORK THERE IS TO BE DONE DURING THAT WEEK IN COURT AND WHAT CONFLICTS THE ATTORNEYS OR WITNESSES MAY HAVE.

I HAD SENT WORD TO THE SOLICITOR AND THE PEOPLE IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT WERE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THEY HAD TO HAVE THEIR CLIENTS IN COURT AT 10 O'CLOCK ON THAT MORNING. IT'S FURTHER MY CUSTOM WHEN A DEFENDANT DOES NOT APPEAR TIMELY, I ALWAYS HAVE A DEPUTY SHERIFF OR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR OR PROBATION OFFICER, I HAVE SOMEBODY CALL THE DEFENDANT, USUALLY THEIR TELEPHONE NUMBER IS ON THE BOND, AND I ALSO HAVE THEM CALL THE BONDSMAN TO ASK THEM TO PLEASE BRING THEM INTO COURT, HOPEFULLY THAT AFTERNOON, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO ESTREAT THE BOND. I AM NOT LOOKING FOR THEIR MONEY. PEOPLE ARE CHARGED AND THEY HAVE TO ANSWER FOR THE CHARGE, AND AS A RESULT OF THAT PRACTICE, THE BONDSMEN REALLY HAVE HELPED THE COURT BY HAVING THE SUBJECT IN COURT TIMELY AS THEY SHOULD.

IN ANY EVENT, THAT SUBJECT WHEN HE DID SHOW UP THE NEXT DAY, STEVEN GAITHERS PLED GUILTY TO D.U.I. SECOND. I SENTENCED HIM TO 91 DAYS AND A $200 FINE WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY. HE DIDN'T HAVE AN ATTORNEY. AND, I AM SURE I ALLOWED HIM TO DO COMMUNITY SERVICE IN LIEU OF JAIL FOR 20 DAYS AS I DID FOR THE SEVEN OR EIGHT OTHER DEFENDANTS. SO, IF I HAD ANY ILL-WILL TOWARD MR. GAITHERS, I WOULD HAVE GIVEN HIM A YEAR AND FINED HIM A THOUSAND DOLLARS, BUT I ONLY FINED HIM $200.

MY RECOLLECTION OF THE INCIDENT TO WHICH HEATH REFERS, THIS WAS THE ONLY CASE WHERE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT APPEAR TIMELY. THAT WAS VERIFIED BY THE CLERK. I AM ENCLOSING A COPY OF THE ROSTER WHICH REFLECTS THE DISPOSITION OF EACH OF THE CASES, AND THERE WERE FIVE CASES CONTINUED FOR VARIOUS REASONS. ONE, SOMEBODY WAS IN THE STATE HOSPITAL, ANOTHER THE VICTIM'S MOUTH AND JAW WAS WIRED TOGETHER AND HE COULDN'T TESTIFY, ANOTHER ONE THE CASE WAS ONLY 13 DAYS OLD. THE NOTES ON THE ROSTER OF CASES WILL SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, BUT ON THE LATE AFTERNOON OF DECEMBER 3RD OF '85 I SAW MR. HEATH IN COURT, AND I DID IN FACT IN OPEN COURT NEGOTIATE WITH HIM THE PAYMENT OF THE SUM OF $102 IN LIEU OF A FORMAL CONDITIONAL BOND ESTREATMENT BEING ISSUED AND A HEARING AT A LATER DATE.

I DID COMPLIMENT MR. HEATH ON HIS KNEE LENGTH LEATHER COAT HE WAS WEARING AND THE EXPENSIVE CLOTHES. IT WAS CERTAINLY NOT DONE IN A MANNER THAT WOULD EMBARRASS HIM. HE WAS TELLING ME HE HAD NO MONEY, HE HAD JUST BOUGHT THIS TAX PROPERTY AND I SAID "YOU LOOK LIKE YOU ARE WELL DRESSED TO ME." NOTHING WAS SAID IN A DEROGATORY MANNER BY ME AND IT WAS LIGHT LEVITY, FRIVOLITY YOU MIGHT SAY. HE DID SAY HE WOULD PAY WHATEVER I ORDERED HIM TO PAY AND THE CLERK TOLD ME THE COST OF FEEDING THE JURY ON MONDAY AND TUESDAY WAS $102, SO I ASKED HIM IF HE WOULD PAY THAT AMOUNT AND HE DID. FRANKLY, I THOUGHT HEATH WAS DELIGHTED TO PAY ONLY $102 AND FOR THE MATTER TO BE OVER AND DONE WITH. I CAN ASSURE YOU, AS I HAVE CHARLIE HEATH, THERE WAS NO INTENT ON MY PART IN ANY WAY TO EMBARRASS HIM OR TO MISTREAT HIM, AND I AM SATISFIED I DID NOT. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY HE REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT HE DID.

WHILE I HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF CHARLIE HEATH AND HAVE NEVER KNOWN OR HEARD OF HIM PRIOR TO GAITHERS NOT APPEARING IN COURT, I DID INQUIRE UPON RECEIVING THIS LETTER AND I WAS TOLD HE HAD BEEN A MAGISTRATE IN FAIRFIELD COUNTY AND WAS REMOVED FROM OFFICE AND HAD PLED GUILTY TO EMBEZZLEMENT IN FAIRFIELD GENERAL SESSIONS SEVERAL YEARS AGO. I WANT TO TELL YOU GENTLEMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE THAT I WAS WRONG, THAT HE DIDN'T PLEAD GUILTY TO EMBEZZLEMENT. I HAVE ATTACHED TO THE HANDOUT TO YOU THE INDICTMENT FOR MISUSE OF FUNDS ON FOUR COUNTS OF CHARLIE H. HEATH, JR. AS A MAGISTRATE TO WHICH HE PLED GUILTY ON SEPTEMBER 20 OF 1982, AND I JUST SAY TO YOU THAT THAT IS THE TYPE PERSON THAT IS UP HERE TESTIFYING AGAINST ME HERE TODAY.

LET ME TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE OTHER COMPLAINANT IN THIS CASE. I AM PROUD OF MY RECORD OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND CERTAINLY OF MY INTEGRITY. I HAVE MADE A DETERMINED EFFORT TO PROTECT THE PROPERTY AND RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS AND THE WELL-BEING AND SAFETY OF ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE. FOR 13-PLUS YEARS PRESIDING IN EACH OF THE COURTS OF THE 46 COUNTIES OF THIS STATE I HAVE SENT CRIMINALS WHERE THEY OUGHT TO BE, EVEN INCLUDING SOME REPRESENTED BY MR. BRYANT'S FIRM, TO JAIL. IF HE IS UPSET ABOUT THAT OR FOR WHATEVER REASON HE DOESN'T WANT ME ON THE BENCH, THEN THAT IS HIS PREROGATIVE. AS I HAVE SAID, I AM PROUD OF MY RECORD OF SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

I REGRET THAT THESE SCURRILOUS AND MALICIOUS ACCUSATIONS HAVE BEEN PRESENTED HERE TODAY. I EMPHATICALLY DENY ANY WRONGDOING. THE VERY ISSUES THAT MR. BRYANT AGAIN RAISES TODAY HAVE BEEN SQUARELY PRESENTED ON SEPARATE OCCASIONS TO JUDGE COTTINGHAM, TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THIS STATE. THESE VERY ISSUES HAVE BEEN EXPRESSEDLY PASSED UPON AND NO IMPROPRIETY HAS BEEN FOUND. OF COURSE, THIS IS THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY THAT I HAVE HAD TO COMMENT ON SOME ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE PRESS AND I WOULD LIKE TO AT THIS TIME REVIEW SOME OF THOSE.

THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION OF WHY A WILL WAS DRAWN IN WHICH MY DAUGHTERS WERE THE BENEFICIARIES. IN ADDITION TO BEING MS. PAULINE KNIGHT'S ATTORNEY, WE WERE CLOSE FAMILY FRIENDS AND SHE HAD STRONG AFFECTIONS FOR MY TWO DAUGHTERS. WE WERE NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBORS FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. OUR RELATIONSHIP WHICH BEGAN IN 1964 WAS MORE THAN THAT OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT. IN DRAWING MRS. KNIGHT'S WILL, I DID WHAT SHE WANTED ME TO DO. I FULLY DISCLOSED TO MRS. KNIGHT AND HER HUSBAND THAT I SHOULD NOT BE EXECUTOR AND THAT SHE SHOULD NOT LEAVE ANYTHING TO MY TWO DAUGHTERS, BUT SHE INSISTED. I WOULD POINT OUT TO YOU IN APRIL OF 1984 WHEN THAT WILL WAS DRAWN, SHE WAS THEN LIVING IN ORANGEBURG WITH MR. KNIGHT, AND HER HUSBAND AND MRS. KNIGHT DROVE TO BARNWELL 40 MILES TO MY OFFICE AND MR. KNIGHT WAS IN THAT ROOM WHEN I COUNSELED WITH MRS. KNIGHT.

I WOULD FURTHER POINT OUT, I WOULD ASK THAT THAT WILL BE PASSED OUT, PLEASE, OF MRS. PAULINE KNIGHT, IT'S IN MY PACKAGE NUMBER 5, (SEE NOTE.) THAT MR. WILKES KNIGHT WAS THE BENEFICIARY OF A LIFE ESTATE OF MRS. KNIGHT'S WILL. MR. WILKES KNIGHT, HER HUSBAND, WAS THE EXECUTOR OF HER WILL. I WAS THE ALTERNATE EXECUTOR ONLY BECAUSE MR. KNIGHT PREDECEASED MRS. KNIGHT ON AUGUST 22ND OF 1983, ONLY BECAUSE OF THAT DID I THEN SERVE AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE.

SO THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED WHY DID I SERVE AS EXECUTOR. I SERVED BECAUSE SHE INSISTED I DO SO AND ASKED ME TO DO SO, SHE DEPENDED ON ME TO DO SO. HER HUSBAND WAS NAMED AS EXECUTOR BUT, AS I STATED, HE PREDECEASED HER ON AUGUST 22ND, 1983. MR. KNIGHT WAS PRESENT WHEN MRS. KNIGHT DISCUSSED THE WILL.

RULE 33 OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT RULES SECTION 5-D OF THE CANONS OF JUDICIAL ETHICS STATES THAT A JUDGE MAY SERVE AS EXECUTOR FOR A MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY OR OTHER RELATIVES OR PERSONS WITH WHOM THE JUDGE MAINTAINS A CLOSE FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP. AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO PASS OUT A LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 9 OF 1974 AS MY FILE NUMBER 7. (SEE NOTE.) KEEP IN MIND HER WILL WAS DRAWN APRIL OF 1974, HERE SOME FIVE MONTHS LATER SEPTEMBER 9 OF 1974. AGAIN, I REGRET THE NECESSITY OF GOING INTO THESE PERSONAL MATTERS OF MRS. KNIGHT BUT IT IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE RELATIONSHIP WHICH I HAD WITH THIS LADY. SHE WAS 68 YEARS OF AGE AT THE TIME HER WILL WAS MADE IN 1974, SHE HAVING EXPIRED IN 1986 AT AGE 80.

THIS LETTER STATES--IT IS WRITTEN FROM ORANGEBURG HER RESIDENCE--SEPTEMBER 9, 1974. RODNEY PEEPLES, ATTORNEY AT LAW. "DEAR RODNEY: IN THE EVENT THAT MY HUSBAND, A.W. KNIGHT, DOES NOT SURVIVE ME OR IS INCAPACITATED, I AM REQUESTING THAT YOU AUTHORIZE THE MOLE FUNERAL HOME TO CARRY OUT THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS AT THE TIME OF MY DEATH," AND THE LADY PROCEEDED TO SET FORTH IN HER LETTER THE NAME OF THE FUNERAL DIRECTOR, THE FUNERAL HOME, THE CLERGYMAN, WHERE SHE WANTED THE FUNERAL HELD, THE TYPE FUNERAL, WHO THE PALLBEARERS WOULD BE--SHE LISTED ME AS THE FIRST PALLBEARER AMONG SIX--SPECIAL REQUEST AS TO THE INSCRIPTION ON HER GRAVE LEDGER, THE TYPE OF FLOWERS SHE WANTED FOR HER CASKET SPRAY, THE TYPE CLOTHING SHE WANTED TO BE BURIED IN, THE TYPE BURIAL VAULT, THE CEMETERY. "I AM ENCLOSING A COPY OF THIS WHICH I REQUEST YOU APPROVE AND TRANSMIT TO MOLE FUNERAL HOME." SO THAT IS IN 1974. SHE PASSED AWAY IN 1986. TWELVE YEARS PREVIOUS SHE HAD DEPENDED ON ME FOR HER LAST FUNERAL INSTRUCTIONS. IF THAT IS NOT A FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH SOMEONE, THEN THERE IS NO DEFINITION FOR THAT TERM AS USED IN THE CODE.

AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO PASS OUT MY EXHIBIT, I CALL IT NUMBER 11, IT'S A CONFIRMATORY LETTER OF JUNE OF 1986. (SEE NOTE.) OBVIOUSLY I WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE CANONS OF JUDICIAL ETHICS. OBVIOUSLY I WAS FAMILIAR WITH SUBSECTION 5-D RELATIVE TO A JUDGE SERVING AS AN EXECUTOR. UPON THE DEATH OF MRS. KNIGHT AND THE EXECUTOR, HER HUSBAND, HAVING PREDECEASED HER, OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF PRECAUTION I CALLED THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT WHO UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLE OF OUR UNIFIED JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY AS PERTAINS TO THE COURTS AND THE JUDICIARY OF THIS STATE. THE LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. "DEAR MR. CHIEF JUSTICE: I NOW ENCLOSE TO YOU A COPY OF THE WILL OF PAULINE KNIGHT, DECEASED. YOU WILL NOTE THE WILL WAS PREPARED PRIOR TO MY ASSUMING THE OFFICE OF JUDGE AND I WAS NAMED THE ALTERNATE EXECUTOR THEREIN. THE FIRST NAMED EXECUTOR, A.W. KNIGHT, PREDECEASED HIS WIFE ON AUGUST 22, 1983. THIS WILL CONFIRM OUR CONVERSATION WHEREIN YOU GAVE YOUR APPROVAL AS CHIEF JUSTICE FOR ME TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF EXECUTOR OF MRS. KNIGHT'S ESTATE. AS I STATED TO YOU, I SHALL NOT CHARGE ANY COMMISSIONS OR FEES FOR SERVING IN THIS CAPACITY." UNLIKE AS INDICATED EARLIER TODAY, THERE WAS NO CONDITION OR CONTINGENCY OF MY SERVING WHETHER OR NOT FEES WERE CHARGED. I VOLUNTEERED THAT TO THE CHIEF THAT I WASN'T GOING TO CHARGE ANY COMMISSIONS OR FEES. THE LAST PARAGRAPH, "I THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO FULFILL MY OBLIGATION TO THIS 80-YEAR-OLD LADY WHO WAS A PREVIOUS CLIENT OF MINE AND WHO DEPENDED ON ME TO HELP HER."

OF COURSE, NOW MR. BRYANT SAYS APPARENTLY THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE APPROVED MY VIOLATING THE JUDICIAL ETHICS BY HIS ALLOWING ME TO SERVE AS EXECUTOR, AND TO ME I FIND THAT INCREDIBLE. THERE'S BEEN AN ISSUE RAISED AS TO THE MANNER IN WHICH I ANSWERED THE QUESTION "DO YOU HAVE ANY INTEREST IN THE MATTER OTHER THAN THE FACT YOU ARE FRIENDS WITH MRS. PAULINE KNIGHT?" MY ANSWER WAS "NO, SIR, JUST TRYING TO HELP THIS LADY WHO DOESN'T HAVE ANY KINFOLKS OTHER THAN THIRD OR FOURTH COUSINS." I FELT THEN, AND I FEEL NOW, THAT I DID NOT HAVE A LEGAL INTEREST IN MRS. KNIGHT'S ESTATE.

AT THAT TIME THAT THE QUESTION WAS ASKED DECEMBER 4 OF 1983, EXCUSE ME, DECEMBER 4, 1985, MRS. KNIGHT WAS LIVING AND CONFINED TO THE NURSING HOME. THE WILL SPEAKS ONLY AT DEATH AND I HAD AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH MRS. KNIGHT AS THE WILL WAS PREPARED PRIOR TO BECOMING A JUDGE. I COULD NOT ETHICALLY DIVULGE THE CONFIDENTIAL CONTENTS OF HER WILL, JUDGE COTTINGHAM RECOGNIZED THAT. AT ISSUE IN THE CASE THAT WAS FOR TRIAL BEFORE JUDGE COTTINGHAM WAS THE VALIDITY OF THE WRITTEN RECORDED AGREEMENT AND THE CLAUSE IN MR. KNIGHT'S WILL OF OCTOBER 1973 WHICH THE SAME LANGUAGE WAS CONTAINED IN THE WILL MADE 13 DAYS BEFORE HIS DEATH ON AUGUST 9, '83, HE EXECUTED THE WILL AND HE PASSED AWAY 13 DAYS LATER ON AUGUST 22, 1983.

WHEN I TESTIFIED ON DECEMBER 4TH OF '85, I COULD NOT REVEAL THE CONTENTS OF THE WILL OF MRS. KNIGHT BECAUSE SHE WAS THEN LIVING. THE WILL TAKES EFFECT ONLY AT DEATH, AND WHEN I WAS ASKED THE QUESTION BY MR. BRYANT "DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE WILL CONTAINS?" MY ANSWER WAS "YES, SIR," BECAUSE I DID KNOW WHAT THE WILL CONTAINED. I WOULD ASK YOU TO TURN TO PAGE 125 OF THE APPELLATE TRANSCRIPT, IF YOU HAVE THAT, IN WHICH JUDGE COTTINGHAM STATED "I'M NOT GOING TO PERMIT HIM OR REQUIRE HIM TO DIVULGE THE CONTENTS OF SOME LADY'S WILL WHO IS SITTING OUT THERE IN A NURSING HOME. I DON'T THINK THAT IS FAIR AND I AM NOT GOING TO PERMIT IT. A WILL IS A VERY SACRED DOCUMENT. I AM NOT GOING TO REQUIRE ANYBODY WHO ASSISTS SOMEBODY TO DIVULGE PUBLICLY THE CONTENTS OF THE WILL."

I SAY TO YOU, I HAD NO LEGAL INTEREST IN THE WILL, BUT WHEN I WAS ASKED WHAT MY INTEREST WAS IN THIS LADY IF I HAD SAID "WELL, I AM THE EXECUTOR OF HER WILL," I WOULD HAVE BEEN DIVULGING THE CONTENTS OF HER WILL. I ANSWERED THE QUESTION TRUTHFULLY, I WAS TRYING TO HELP THE LADY. JUDGE COTTINGHAM PROPERLY SO, AS MR. BRYANT SHOULD KNOW AND AS EACH OF YOU GENTLEMEN SURELY KNOW, THE CONTENTS OF A WILL OF A CLIENT CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BE REVEALED AND JUDGE COTTINGHAM RULED THAT DAY THAT IT WOULD NOT BE AND SHOULD NOT BE REVEALED.

NOW THERE IS A QUESTION ABOUT MY WRITING ON JUDGE'S STATIONERY. IF YOU WOULD PASS OUT THAT LETTER, IT'S MY FILE NUMBER 9, PLEASE. (SEE NOTE.) I SHARE WITH YOU THAT THIS IS THE ONLY STATIONERY I HAD IN 1983. MR. KELLY KNEW THAT I WAS A JUDGE. IT WASN'T AS IF WE WERE IN NEW YORK CITY OR KANSAS CITY FOR THE FIRST TIME AND I WAS SPEAKING TO HIM AS IF I WERE A JUDGE, HE KNEW THAT. BUT I TELL YOU THIS LETTER OF NOVEMBER 6 OF 1983 WAS IN NO WAY COERCIVE. READ ALONG WITH ME. "DEAR WILL: NOVEMBER 6, 1983. I APPRECIATE YOUR DISCUSSING WITH ME THIS EVENING THE SITUATION CONCERNING PAULINE." SECOND PARAGRAPH: "I WOULD ENCOURAGE." THIRD PARAGRAPH: "AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE ENCLOSED STATEMENT THAT EVEN INCLUDING THE INTEREST EARNED ON HER SAVINGS--WHICH WAS THEN ABOUT $25,000--"SHE WOULD NOT HAVE ENOUGH TO PAY HER MONTHLY EXPENSES. I RECOGNIZE THERE IS A DISTINCT LIKELIHOOD THE HOUSE IN ORANGEBURG WILL HAVE TO BE SOLD, BUT I DID NOT WANT TO EXTINGUISH ANY GRIMMER"--AND THAT IS A TYPO, THIS LETTER WAS DICTATED ON A SUNDAY EVENING BEFORE I LEFT TO GO TO COURT, THAT SHOULD BE GLIMMER--"I DID NOT WANT TO EXTINGUISH ANY GLIMMER OF HOPE THAT SHE MAY HAVE IN LEAVING THE NURSING HOME AND KNOWING THAT SHE HAD A FURNISHED HOME TO GO TO." NEXT PARAGRAPH: "IN COMPLETE FAIRNESS TO THIS 77-YEAR-OLD LADY, I WOULD AGAIN RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU RECONSIDER YOUR POSITION CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF THE $300 PER MONTH TO PAULINE DURING HER LIFETIME AS MANDATED BY PARAGRAPH 4 OF WILKES' WILL DATED AUGUST 9, 1983, AS WELL AS SET FORTH IN THE AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 29, 1972, WHICH IS RECORDED IN THE ORANGEBURG COURTHOUSE. IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT NO ONE CAN PREDICT THE COST OR EXTENT OF THE NECESSARY MEDICAL CARE FOR PAULINE IN THE FUTURE, AND IT'S VERY CLEAR TO ME YOU LEGALLY MUST PAY THE $300 PER MONTH TO PAULINE FOR HER LIFETIME. I SINCERELY TELL YOU I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE A DISAGREEMENT CONCERNING THIS MATTER BUT ON BEHALF OF PAULINE I MUST INSIST YOU COMMENCE THESE PAYMENTS." LAST PAGE: "LET ME PLEASE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU CONFER WITH AN ATTORNEY OF YOUR CHOOSING CONCERNING THIS MATTER, AND AS WE AGREED THIS EVENING, I WILL CALL YOU AGAIN NEXT SUNDAY EVENING AND DISCUSS IT FURTHER WITH YOU. I HOPE ALL IS WELL WITH YOU AND NANCY. WITH KIND PERSONAL REGARDS, YOURS SINCERELY." I ENCOURAGED HIM TO GO TO A LAWYER AND TALK ABOUT IT. THERE IS NOTHING COERCIVE ABOUT THAT LETTER.

ON THE SUBJECT OF MY ATTEMPT TO USE MY JUDICIAL OFFICE, I WOULD SHARE WITH YOU GENTLEMEN OF THIS COMMITTEE THAT I DIDN'T ATTEND THE PROBATE COURT HEARING OF DECEMBER 16 OF '83 AT WHICH TIME THE JUDGE OF PROBATE FOR ORANGEBURG COUNTY ORDERED MR. KELLY REMOVED BECAUSE IT WAS A CONFLICT, POTENTIAL CONFLICT, OF HIS BEING EXECUTOR. I DIDN'T ATTEND THE APPEAL FROM THE PROBATE COURT TO I BELIEVE JUDGE LANEY WHEN THAT WAS ARGUED IN ORANGEBURG, I WASN'T THERE. I DIDN'T GO TO THE SUPREME COURT WHEN THAT CASE WAS ARGUED IN THE SUPREME COURT. THERE WERE TWO VENUE MOTIONS, HEARINGS, I DIDN'T ATTEND EITHER OF THOSE TWO. MR. BRYANT MADE A MOTION OCTOBER 8 OF '86 IN THE SUPREME COURT, I DIDN'T ATTEND THAT HEARING. MAY 18, 1987 WHEN THE LEASE AGREEMENT OF $300 MONTHLY PAYMENT CASE WAS ARGUED, I DIDN'T GO TO THE SUPREME COURT WHEN THAT WAS ARGUED. THE ONLY TIME I EVER WENT TO COURT WAS ON DECEMBER 4TH, 1985. IN RETROSPECT I SUPPOSE WE COULD HAVE STIPULATED, THE PARTIES COULD HAVE, THAT I HAD DEMANDED, IF YOU WILL, OF MR. KELLY--INSISTED HE PAY THE 300 AND THE PAYMENT HADN'T BEEN FORTHCOMING. I REALLY SUPPOSE I DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE BEEN A WITNESS, THAT IS IN HINDSIGHT LOOKING AT THE CASE.

I WOULD LIKE TO PASS OUT MY AFFIDAVIT IN MY FILE NUMBER 12. (SEE NOTE.) IT'S HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND, MR. BRYANT ON THE ONE HAND IS SAYING THAT MRS. KNIGHT'S ESTATE WAS MISMANAGED FROM THE TIME SHE WENT TO THE NURSING HOME WITH A BROKEN HIP IN THE SUMMER OF 1983 UNTIL HER DEATH IN 1986. IT SAYS HER ESTATE WAS MISMANAGED. ON THE OTHER HAND, HE SAYS THAT I AM TRYING TO ENHANCE MY DAUGHTERS' INHERITANCE, BUT I DID THIS, GENTLEMEN OF THIS COMMITTEE, MR. ELROY DANTZLER WAS AN ACCOUNTANT IN ORANGEBURG, AND I GOT BUDDY BARNWELL, AN ATTORNEY IN ORANGEBURG GO OUT TO THE NURSING HOME AND TALK WITH MRS. KNIGHT ABOUT A POWER OF ATTORNEY, SO WE HAD MR. DANTZLER APPOINTED ATTORNEY-IN-FACT TO DEPOSIT HER SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS, FOR THE BILLS TO BE SENT TO HER FOR MEDICINE, FOR DOCTORS' BILLS WHATEVER. HE IS SAYING I AM INVOLVED IN THIS ESTATE. HERE IS EVIDENCE, THE AFFIDAVIT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. HE RECEIVED ALL MONEY AND DEPOSITED THE SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK, PAID ALL OF HER BILLS. DURING THAT 34 MONTHS SHE HAD TOTAL EXPENSES OF $75,000. HER MEDICAL WAS BROKEN DOWN. DURING ALL THAT TIME SHE WAS BEDRIDDEN AND CONFINED TO THE NURSING HOME. AT THE TIME OF HER DEATH AT THE BARNWELL NURSING HOME THE COST ALONE WAS $77.00 A DAY OR $24,550 A YEAR, PLUS WHATEVER MEDICAL FOR DOCTORS, DRUGS OR HOSPITAL. WHEN I WAS APPOINTED EXECUTOR, MR. DANTZLER ON JULY 1 OF '86 FORWARDED ME THE 12.000-ODD DOLLARS SHE HAD REMAINING. OUT OF THAT I PAID 5,000-ODD, WHATEVER THE COST OF THE FUNERAL BILL AND FUNERAL EXPENSES. I HAD TO SIGN SEPTEMBER 30 OF '83 AT THE BARNWELL NURSING HOME THE AGREEMENT THAT I WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ALL OF HER MEDICAL BILLS AND MEDICAL COSTS, WHICH I WAS GLAD TO DO, BUT I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED ANY MONEY FROM MRS. KNIGHT'S ESTATE OR FROM HER WHILE SHE WAS LIVING AND OF COURSE NEITHER HAVE MY CHILDREN. MY WIFE WAS REIMBURSED $344 FOR SOME NIGHTGOWNS AND PERSONAL BELONGINGS THAT WERE NECESSARILY PURCHASED FOR HER WHILE SHE WAS IN THE NURSING HOME, AND OTHER THINGS WERE GIVEN TO HER. NO FUNDS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE ESTATE OF WILKES KNIGHT, BUT NONE HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR. AS LONG AS THE LADY HAD MONEY OF HER OWN, THERE WAS NO NEED TO CALL ON MR. KNIGHT'S ESTATE FOR ANY FUNDS TO PAY HER BILLS BECAUSE FORTUNATELY UP UNTIL THE TIME OF HER DEATH SHE HAD ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY HER OWN BILLS.

I WOULD LIKE TO PASS OUT NUMBER 13 AT THIS TIME IN MY FILE. I APOLOGIZE FOR ALL THE PAPERWORK. I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU GENTLEMEN HAVE THIS BEFORE YOU. THAT IS A COPY OF A MOTION MR. BRYANT MADE FOR A NEW TRIAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THIS STATE, AND I WOULD POINT OUT TO YOU ON THE FIRST PAGE OF HIS MOTION HE TALKS ABOUT JUDGE PEEPLES WAS A WITNESS, PARTICIPATED AT TRIAL, SAT WITH COUNSEL, ADVISED THROUGHOUT THE CASE. HE ASKED FOR THE CASE TO BE REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL, AND I POINT OUT TO YOU ON THE SECOND PAGE, PARAGRAPH 1, THE LAST TWO CLAUSES BECAUSE WHEN MRS. PAULINE DIED JUNE 11 OF 1986, ONLY THEN WAS I MADE A PARTY TO THE LAWSUIT IN MY CAPACITY AS EXECUTOR AND THAT WAS THEN PENDING IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT. MR. BRYANT SAYS THAT I HAD AN INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE WHICH I FAILED TO REVEAL WHILE TESTIFYING ABOUT WHICH I DENIED WHEN CROSS-EXAMINED. THAT IS IN THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH. IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH HE SETS FORTH THE WILL WAS ADMITTED TO PROBATE, MY TWO DAUGHTERS WERE THE BENEFICIARIES. THEY WERE THE RESIDUAL BENEFICIARIES AFTER MR. WILKES PASSED AWAY BECAUSE HE HAD A LIFE ESTATE. HE SAYS AT THE TIME HE TESTIFIED THE WITNESS, PEEPLES, KNEW IF THE RESPONDENT PREVAILED, THE FUNDS TO BE RECOVERED WOULD BECOME THE PROPERTY OF PAULINE KNIGHT UNLESS DISSIPATED DURING HER REMAINING LIFETIME AND WOULD BECOME A PART OF HER ESTATE AT DEATH AND ULTIMATELY TO PASS TO HIS TWO DAUGHTERS. YET THE WITNESS TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWING:

"JUDGE PEEPLES, DO YOU HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS MATTER OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT YOU ARE FRIENDS WITH MRS. PAULINE KNIGHT?"

ANSWER: "NO, SIR, JUST TRYING TO HELP THIS LADY WHO DOESN'T HAVE ANY KINFOLKS OTHER THAN THIRD OR FOURTH COUSINS.

QUESTION: "ALL RIGHT, SIR, HAVE YOU EVER PREPARED A WILL FOR MRS. KNIGHT?"

"YES, I HAVE." I PROBABLY PREPARED FIVE WILLS I WOULD SAY IN THE TEN YEARS I REPRESENTED HER.

"DO YOU PRESENTLY HAVE A WILL YOU PREPARED FOR HER?"

ANSWER: "NO, SIR, I DON'T HAVE IT."

QUESTION: "DO YOU KNOW WHERE IT IS?"

ANSWER: "YES, SIR, I KNOW WHERE IT IS," AND

"DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT CONTAINS?"

ANSWER: "YES, SIR.

THERE IS NO FALSE SWEARING IN THAT, GENTLEMEN.

THE COURT THEN REFUSED TO ALLOW FURTHER EXAMINATION. I HAVE READ TO YOU JUDGE COTTINGHAM'S COMMENTS AND HE SAYS HE NEEDS A NEW TRIAL SO OUR INTEREST CAN BE SHOWN AND MADE KNOWN. I POINT OUT TO YOU THE AFFIDAVIT, THE LAST DOCUMENT THERE, THE LAST PAGE, "I AM NOT A BENEFICIARY UNDER THE WILL OF MRS. KNIGHT AND I DO NOT HAVE A LEGAL INTEREST IN HER ESTATE."

I WOULD ASK YOU TO PASS OUT DOCUMENT 14, AND YOU MAY ALREADY HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS EXHIBIT. THAT IS THE TRANSCRIPT OF OCTOBER 8 OF 1986 WHEN MR. BRYANT AND MR. NESS WENT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT TO ARGUE THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL. I WOULD ASK YOU TO TURN OVER PLEASE TO PAGE 9, NEXT TO LAST PAGE. AFTER YOU HAVE READ THIS, YOU HAVE SEEN WHERE JUSTICE GREGORY HAD ALREADY TOLD MR. BRYANT THAT HE HAD MADE THE WRONG MOTION IN THE WRONG COURT ON IMPROPER GROUNDS, AND ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE GREGORY IN THE MIDDLE OF PAGE 9, TALKING ABOUT MY BEING A JUDGE AND INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, JUSTICE GREGORY STATED "THAT IS ONE REASON WE WANTED TO HAVE YOU AND MR. NESS APPEAR BEFORE US BECAUSE WE DO INVOLVE HERE A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AND WE WANTED TO HAVE AN ABUNDANCE OF PRECAUTION, WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. ROUTINELY WE WOULD NOT HEAR FROM YOU." THE SUPREME COURT DOESN'T HEAR A MOTION TO REMAND, THEY HEAR THEM WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENTS BUT THEY GAVE HIM AN ORAL ARGUMENT IN HERE BECAUSE A JUDGE WAS INVOLVED. "ROUTINELY"--STILL QUOTING JUSTICE GREGORY--"WE WOULD DISMISS THIS ON ITS FACE BECAUSE OF THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN YOUR MOTION THAT YOU SIMPLY DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA. SECONDLY, YOU ARE IN THE WRONG FORUM."

I SUBMIT TO YOU, GENTLEMEN, THAT MR. BRYANT'S CONTENTIONS WHICH HE AGAIN RAISES HERE TODAY, THEY WERE HEARD, THEY WERE CONSIDERED, THEY WERE RULED UPON BY NO LESS AUTHORITY THAN THE SUPREME COURT OF THIS STATE, BECAUSE IF YOU WILL LOOK AT THE FRONT DOCUMENT THERE ON THE PREVIOUS ITEM THAT WAS HANDED OUT TO YOU, IT ALLOWED ME TO BE SUBSTITUTED AS A PARTY. (SEE NOTE.) MR. BRYANT DIDN'T OBJECT TO THAT. APPELLATE'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL IS DENIED. THE COURT PERMITTED ORAL ARGUMENT ONLY BECAUSE A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY WAS INVOLVED AND THESE ALLEGATIONS WERE MADE AGAINST HIM AND THEY WERE BEING OVERLY CAUTIOUS, CAREFUL IN THEIR CONSIDERATION, AND IT'S WORTHY OF NOTE THAT THE COURT GRANTED NO RELIEF.

AGAIN I POINT OUT TO YOU THE SUPREME COURT OF THIS STATE I SUBMIT BY DENIAL OF HIS NEW TRIAL MOTION PUT THEIR STAMP OF APPROVAL ON MY ACTIONS AND CONDUCT. HOWEVER, MR. BRYANT APPARENTLY REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE COURT'S DECISION AND IF HE STILL SAYS I AM WRONG HERE TODAY, THEN HE MUST NECESSARILY BE SAYING THAT THEY, THE SUPREME COURT, THAT THEY ARE WRONG. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW HE CAN TALK ABOUT ME DOING SOMETHING WRONG WHEN THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THIS STATE GAVE ME EXPRESS PERMISSION TO DO SO OR HOW HE CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT HOW I ANSWERED A QUESTION WHEN THE SUPREME COURT OF THIS STATE HAS FOUND NO IMPROPRIETY.

FURTHER I PASS OUT TO YOU FILE 15, THE ORAL ARGUMENTS OF MAY 18, 1987, THE TRANSCRIPT FROM THE SUPREME COURT. YOU MAY ALREADY HAVE THIS DOCUMENT. ON PAGE 6 OF THAT, IF YOU WOULD LOOK AT PAGE 6 IN THAT TRANSCRIPT ABOUT 12 LINES FROM THE BOTTOM, MR. BRYANT STATES "THE TESTIMONY OF JUDGE PEEPLES HAD NO BEARING ON THE RESPONDENT'S CAUSE, IN FACT, IT WAS FAVORABLE TO US, ALTHOUGH I TRIED TO KEEP IT OUT OF THIS APPEAL RECORD." I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS COMPLAINING ABOUT. TO ME IT DEFIES LOGIC AND COMPREHENSION TO AGAIN TODAY TO COMPLETELY REVERSE HIS POSITION AND COMPLAIN AGAIN ABOUT MY TESTIMONY.

AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO PASS OUT PLEASE THE COPY OF THAT LEASE AGREEMENT, THAT IS NUMBERS 2, 3, 4 AND 5. I SAY LEASE AGREEMENT, THERE WAS A BILL OF SALE OF APRIL 28, '72. THAT IS NUMBER 2. (SEE NOTE.)

SENATOR SMITH: JUDGE, WHILE YOU ARE PASSING THOSE OUT I AM GOING TO ASK YOU HOW YOU DEVISED THIS NUMBERING SYSTEM? (LAUGHTER.)

(CONTINUED TESTIMONY OF JUDGE PEEPLES.)

GENTLEMEN, THAT FIRST DOCUMENT THERE IS A BILL OF SALE BETWEEN MR. WILKES KNIGHT AND MR. KELLY APRIL 28 OF '72, IT SAYS CONSIDERATION $5 AND THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE LAUNDROMAT AND INVENTORY AND EQUIPMENT. THE NEXT DOCUMENT IS AN AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 4 OF '72, SOME FIVE OR SIX MONTHS LATER, IN WHICH MR. KELLY AGREED TO PAY TO MR. KNIGHT 300 A MONTH FOR LIFE AND AT HIS DEATH 300 A MONTH TO HIS WIDOW, MRS. PAULINE KNIGHT, AND I POINT OUT TO YOU THAT THAT AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED BY MR. KELLY, MR. KNIGHT AND MRS. KNIGHT, AND OF FURTHER SIGNIFICANCE, THEY THOUGHT SO MUCH OF THIS AGREEMENT, THE IMPORTANCE OF IT, THEY RECORDED IT IN THE COURTHOUSE IN ORANGEBURG COUNTY ON THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1972. IT'S STILL RECORDED THERE TODAY. IT'S NOT MARKED VOID, IT'S NOT MARKED RESCINDED, IT'S NOT MARKED VITIATED. I DIDN'T DRAW THIS, BUDDY BARNWELL, AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING MR. KELLY AND MR. KNIGHT, DREW THAT AGREEMENT TO PAY THAT $300.

I WOULD LIKE TO PASS OUT MR. WILKES KNIGHT'S WILL OF OCTOBER 1973, WHICH IS MY EXHIBIT NUMBER 4. THAT FIRST WILL OF MR. WILKES KNIGHT WITH PERMISSION OF WILL KELLY IN NOVEMBER OF '83 SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER MR. WILKES KNIGHT'S DEATH, I WENT TO ANDREWS BERRY, AN ELDERLY GENTLEMAN WHO IS AN ACCOUNTANT, AN ATTORNEY IN ORANGEBURG, AND HE GAVE ME A COPY OF THIS WILL HERE OF OCTOBER OF '73 OF MR. WILKES KNIGHT, AND I WOULD POINT OUT TO YOU THAT IN THAT PARAGRAPH 3 HE HAD LEFT ALL OF HIS SAVINGS ACCOUNT TO THE CHURCH IN ORANGEBURG, BUT WHEN HE WENT BACK 13 DAYS BEFORE HIS DEATH ON AUGUST 9 OF '83, SOME 10 YEARS LATER, SOME 10 YEARS LATER, HE CHANGED THAT AND LEFT $5,000 TO THAT CHURCH.

LOOK AT ITEM 4 IN THE WILL OF 1973 AND LOOK AT ITEM 4 IN THE WILL OF 1983 13 DAYS BEFORE THE GENTLEMAN EXPIRED. (SEE NOTE.) "I HEREBY WILL AND BEQUEATH UNTO MY SON, WILLIAM W. KELLY, ALL THE BUSINESS INTERESTS, LEASES AND OTHER INTEREST REFERRED TO IN AGREEMENT BETWEEN KELLY AND KNIGHT DATED AUGUST 29, '72"--THAT IS THE ONE RECORDED IN THE COURTHOUSE--"UPON CONDITION THAT FOR AND DURING THE TERM OF THE LIFE OF MY WIDOW, PAULINE KNIGHT, WILLIAM W. KELLY PAY UNTO TO HER MONTHLY, THE SUM OF $300 AS SPECIFIED IN SAID AGREEMENT."

OF FURTHER SIGNIFICANCE IS THE FACT IN HIS OLD WILL OF '73, THAT PARAGRAPH 5, HE HAD A BEAUTIFUL CHOCOLATE LAB WHEN THEY WERE OUR NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBORS, CHARLIE BROWN. HE WANTED CHARLIE BROWN BURIED BY HIM, BUT HE LOST CHARLIE BROWN BEFORE HE DIED IN AUGUST OF '83 SO HE CHANGED HIS WILL. DOESN'T THAT INDICATE TO YOU THE MAN KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING WHEN HE WENT 13 DAYS BEFORE HE DIED AND CHANGED HIS WILL?

FURTHER, IN THE WILL OF '73 HE NAMED MS. PAULINE AS THE EXECUTRIX, AND A WILLIAM DERIEUX, A NEPHEW, WHO I DON'T KNOW, AS AN ALTERNATE. THAT WAS IN '73, BUT IN '83 SHE IS IN A NURSING HOME WITH A BROKEN HIP, SO HE CHANGED THE EXECUTOR AND APPOINTED WILL KELLY AS THE EXECUTOR. SO I SUBMIT THAT MR. KNIGHT WASN'T CONFUSED WHEN HE SIGNED THAT WILL OF AUGUST OF '83. HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING BECAUSE HE HAD IN THERE AGAIN TO PAY THAT $300 A MONTH. AS MR. BRYANT SAYS, I FOUND SOME PAPERS AMONG MR. AND MRS. KNIGHT'S PAPERS, THAT IS NOT HOW I FOUND OUT ABOUT THAT AGREEMENT AT THE COURTHOUSE. THE WILL RIGHT HERE THAT WAS FILED FOR RECORD, I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT AGREEMENT IN '72 OR IN '73 OR IN '78 OR '81, BUT WHEN THE GENTLEMAN'S WILL WAS FILED 13 DAYS BEFORE--MADE 13 DAYS BEFORE HIS DEATH, I HAVE NEVER GONE THROUGH MR. KNIGHT'S PAPERS, I HAVE NEVER HAD ACCESS TO THEM. I HAVE NEVER HAD ACCESS TO HIS TAX RECORDS. YET, MR. BRYANT SAYS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY DEBT BEING OWED TO MRS. KNIGHT. YOU HAVE GOT THE RECORDED AGREEMENT AT THE COURTHOUSE, YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE WILL THAT WAS 13 DAYS--AND MRS. KNIGHT DIDN'T BRING THE ACTION TO CONSTRUE THE $300, THAT WAS BROUGHT BY MR. KELLY, A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION TO DETERMINE IF THE $300 WAS A VALID DEBT OR NOT A VALID DEBT. TRUE ENOUGH WHEN THAT SUIT WAS BROUGHT, THERE WAS A COUNTERCLAIM SAYING THAT THE DEBT WAS OWED BECAUSE OF THAT AGREEMENT. JUDGE COTTINGHAM FOUND THAT THERE WAS A DEBT. I THOUGHT THERE WAS A DEBT. JUDGE HARWELL, AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, THOUGHT THERE WAS A DEBT. I DON'T WANT TO REHASH THIS CASE. THE CASE IS OVER, IT'S BEEN RULED ON AND WE ACCEPT THAT, BUT THERE WAS A JUSTICIABLE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT $300 SHOULD BE PAID NO ONE KNOWING THE EXTENT OF MRS. KNIGHT'S MEDICAL BILLS THROUGH THE YEARS THAT MAY COME, BECAUSE THAT LITIGATION INVOLVING THAT AGREEMENT WAS INITIATED AND FILED BY MR. KELLY, NOT BY ANYONE ON BEHALF OF MRS. KNIGHT.

YOU KNOW THAT WILL THAT WAS MADE FOR MRS. KNIGHT IN APRIL OF 1974, I LEFT THAT WILL IN THE SAFE IN THE BLATT OFFICE IN BARNWELL WHEN I LEFT THE PRACTICE OF LAW. THAT WILL REMAINED THERE UNTIL HER DEATH ON JUNE 11 OF 1986. I DIDN'T CARRY IT AROUND IN MY COAT POCKET, DIDN'T PUT IT IN THE SAFE IN MY OFFICE. I QUESTION WHETHER ANY FAMILY FRIENDS WERE SHOWN THAT WILL BY ANY MEMBER OF THAT LAW FIRM, BUT I WASN'T THERE SO I CAN'T SAY, BUT CERTAINLY MRS. KNIGHT FROM APRIL OF 1974 WHEN THAT WILL WAS MADE, WHEN I DREW THAT WILL, SHE WAS LIVING IN ORANGEBURG, SHE HAD UNLIMITED OPPORTUNITY TO COUNSEL WITH MANY ATTORNEYS OR OTHER ADVISORS BETWEEN THE DATE OF HER WILL OF APRIL 17, 1974 AND HER HUSBAND'S DEATH ON AUGUST 22ND OF 1983 AND EVEN THEREAFTER.

THERE HAS BEEN A MENTION ABOUT THE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE. I DIDN'T APPEAR AT ANY OF THOSE VENUE MOTIONS SO I DON'T HAVE PRIVY TO THE AFFIDAVITS OR WHAT WAS ARGUED THERE, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THIS, THE MOTION TO CHANGE THE VENUE FROM ORANGEBURG TO BARNWELL WAS DECIDED BY JUDGE RICHARD FIELDS. THEN MR. BRYANT MADE A MOTION TO CHANGE THE VENUE FROM BARNWELL COUNTY BACK TO ORANGEBURG COUNTY AND THAT WAS HEARD AND RULED ON BY JUDGE BRISTOW, NOT BY JUDGE COTTINGHAM. I WASN'T AT EITHER ONE OF THOSE HEARINGS. I WOULD SHARE WITH YOU THAT NEITHER VENUE ORDER WAS APPEALED BY MR. BRYANT. I DON'T SEE WHERE VENUE HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE OR WHETHER IT WAS HEARD IN ONE COUNTY OR ANOTHER BECAUSE IT WAS BEING HEARD NON-JURY.

YOU KNOW THEY TRY AND PAINT THIS PICTURE OF THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP OF MR. KELLY. WHEN MRS. KNIGHT DIED, I CALLED MR. KELLY AND ASKED HIM IF HE WANTED TO SHARE WITH ME ANY REQUESTS AS TO THE FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS EVEN THOUGH I HAD THAT LETTER, AND HE SAID NOT. I TOLD HIM THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE FUNERAL. HE WASN'T CLOSE ENOUGH TO THAT LADY TO COME TO HER FUNERAL. TO MY KNOWLEDGE FROM SEPTEMBER OF '83 UNTIL SHE EXPIRED JUNE 11 OF '86 HE AND HIS WIFE VISITED HER ONE TIME, DECEMBER 16 OF '83, IN THE BARNWELL COUNTY NURSING HOME. AND, OF COURSE, MR. BRYANT SAYS THERE IS NO RECORD THAT ANY MONEY WAS OWED AFTER '78. WELL, THE CORRECT TRUTH IS THAT MR. KELLY PAID THE $300 A MONTH THROUGH DECEMBER OF 1979. THE TRANSCRIPT WILL BEAR THAT OUT. I THINK HE MEANT '79 RATHER THAN '78, BUT YOU SEE THAT WILL AND SEE THAT RECORDED AGREEMENT, IT NEVER HAS BEEN VOIDED AT THE COURTHOUSE, SO TO ME AND TO JUDGE COTTINGHAM AND JUDGE HARWELL AT LEAST, THERE WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE THERE WAS A JUSTICIABLE ISSUE ABOUT THE $300 DEBT.

NOW THERE HAS BEEN SOME COMMENT MADE ABOUT HOW UNNERVED OR RATTLED MR. BRYANT WAS WHEN WE HAD THIS TRIAL DOWN IN BARNWELL COUNTY COURTHOUSE. I WAS IN FAIRFIELD COUNTY IN WINNSBORO THAT DAY AND TO ACCOMMODATE MR. BRYANT, HE HAD WRITTEN JUDGE COTTINGHAM AND ASKED HIM TO HEAR IT, AND JUDGE COTTINGHAM--IT WAS MY RECOLLECTION I WAS AWAY FOR SIX MONTHS TO HEAR SOME GERMINATION SUIT CASE INVOLVING 20-PLUS COMPLAINANTS AND THE CASE TOOK THE WHOLE WEEK TO TRY, SO HE SET THE CASE LATE IN THE AFTERNOON. IT WORKED OUT WELL BECAUSE FINISHED COURT THAT DAY AND GOT THERE ABOUT A QUARTER TO 7, AND THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE BARNWELL COURTHOUSE, YoU HAVE A WROUGHT IRON RAILING, IT'S A ROBERT MILLS, GOING UP TO THE FRONT DOOR. I DON'T EVER REMEMBER GOING IN THAT DOOR IN MY LIFE. I PARKED AND I WENT DOWN THE HALL AND WENT UPSTAIRS. UPSTAIRS THERE IS ONLY ONE JUDGE'S OFFICE IN THE BARNWELL COURTHOUSE AND SHARE THAT OFFICE WITH WHATEVER JUDGE MIGHT BE THERE. I HAD MY CHARGE BOOKS AND I HAD MY BRIEFCASE AND I WALKED IN MY OFFICE AND I PUT THOSE DOWN AND PICKED UP A FILE INVOLVING THIS KNIGHT CASE WHICH WAS ABOUT TO BE HEARD. I SAID "HELLO" TO JUDGE COTTINGHAM AND WE WALKED OUT INTO THE HALL AND HE WENT IN THE JUDGE'S DOOR, AND MY RECOLLECTION IS I WENT IN THE OTHER DOOR. I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF GOING IN THE SAME DOOR THAT JUDGE COTTINGHAM MAY HAVE GONE INTO ON THIS EVENING.

FINALLY, GENTLEMEN OF THIS COMMITTEE, I WOULD EMPHASIZE TO YOU THAT I HAVE NOT DISREGARDED THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. I DENY ANY WRONGDOING. I REJECT THE CONTENTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE AGAINST ME AND DENY THEM. I HAVE BEEN JUDGED BY MANY OTHERS, AS REFLECTED IN MY CURRICULUM VITAE WHICH YOU HAVE, TO HAVE QUALIFICATIONS AND PERFORMANCES CONTRARY TO THOSE ASSERTED ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST ME TODAY. IF ELECTED, I SHALL UPHOLD AND FOLLOW THE STANDARDS OF THE OFFICE AND THE CANONS APPLICABLE THERETO. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY WHICH IS THE FIRST I HAVE HAD TO COMMENT ON THESE MATTERS AND, OBVIOUSLY, I WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT THE HEATH MATTER OR ABOUT THE KNIGHT V. KELLY OR KELLY V. KNIGHT, OR HOWEVER YOU WOULD LIKE TO DESIGNATE IT.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR SMITH:

Q     JUDGE PEEPLES, FOUR QUESTIONS, HOW LONG WAS MRS. KNIGHT A NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR OF YOURS? YOU SAID FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME.

A     A LITTLE OVER TWO YEARS, AND MR. KNIGHT WAS MARRIED TO HER THEN AND THEY WERE BOTH OUR NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBORS, AND CHARLIE BROWN.

Q     DID YoU KNOW HER BEFORE THEY MOVED NEXT DOOR?

A     CERTAINLY, YES, SIR. I KNEW HER FROM 1964, AND THEY WERE NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBORS JUST AFTER THEY MARRIED IN '72 AND '73 AND THEN THEY MOVED BACK TO ORANGEBURG IN EARLY '74.

Q     THEN AFTER SHE MOVED BACK WAS WHEN SHE CAME TO YOU TO GET THE WILL PREPARED?

A     YES, SIR. WE VISITED IN EACH OTHER'S HOMES AND EXCHANGED GIFTS AND WHAT HAVE YOU. WE WERE CLOSE.

Q     THE LETTER, I BELIEVE IT'S NUMBER 9, I GOT LOST IN YOUR NUMBERS, THE LETTER OF NOVEMBER 6, 1983 THAT YOU WROTE TO MR. KELLY ON JUDICIAL STATIONERY.

A     YES, SIR.

Q     WHO SIGNED THAT LETTER, DID YOU SIGN IT?

A     MY SECRETARY SIGNED IT FOR ME BUT THAT IS IDENTICALLY THE SAME AS MY SIGNING IT, BUT MY SECRETARY--BECAUSE NOVEMBER 6TH, AND IT'S SET FORTH IN THE LETTER, IT'S A SUNDAY EVENING AND I CAN'T TELL YOU WHERE I WAS IN COURT THAT FOLLOWING MONDAY.

Q     YOU JUST DID WHAT A LOT OF US DO, WE DICTATE THE LETTER AND FORGET ABOUT IT?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     SIGN IT AND MAIL IT ON?

A     YES, SIR. SHE WAS DOING WHAT I HAD TOLD HER TO DO.

Q     UNDER THE LAW WHAT IS THE DUTY OF AN EXECUTOR OF AN ESTATE?

A     TO SEE THAT THE TERMS OF THE WILL ARE APPROPRIATELY CARRIED OUT AND TO FULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES THERE UNDER THE LAW.

Q     HAD THERE BEEN AN ASSET OR ASSUMED ASSET, OR PERHAPS IT WAS AN ASSET OF THIS ESTATE OUT THERE, WOULD AN EXECUTOR HAVE BEEN RESPONDING TO HIS DUTY HAD THEY NOT GONE AFTER EVERY ASSET AVAILABLE?

A     NO, SIR, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE.

Q     AT THE PRESENT TIME AND, OF COURSE, AS I SAID WE HAVE THE PROBATE ROLL, WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THE ESTATE?

A     OF MRS. PAULINE KNIGHT?

Q     YES, SIR.

A     WHEN SHE EXPIRED, AND THE AFFIDAVIT FROM MR. DANTZLER WILL GIVE MORE CORRECT INFORMATION, IT WAS APPROXIMATELY $12,400 AND THERE WERE SOME PROBATE COSTS. I WOULD SAY THERE IS FIVE, SIX THOUSAND, MAYBE SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS CASH IN THE ESTATE, AND THEN THERE ARE TWO HOUSES, ONE IS A 900 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE, THE OTHER HOUSE HAS NOW BEEN SOLD FOR $18,000 THAT DIDN'T HAVE--THERE WAS A TIN ROOF, IT DIDN'T HAVE ANY HEAT OR AIR, IT WAS FALLING APART, AND RATHER THAN TRYING TO FIX IT UP SOME FOUR MONTHS AGO, ONE OF THOSE HOUSES WAS SOLD FOR $18,000 AND THE OTHER HOUSE WITH 900 SQUARE FEET STILL REMAINS AND IT RENTS FOR $150 A MONTH.

BEAR IN MIND THIS, THAT MRS. KNIGHT HAD OWNED A STORE BUILDING ON MAIN STREET THAT LASTLY WAS RENTED FOR $125 A MONTH SOME 8-10 YEARS AGO, BUT THE ROOF WAS FALLING IN AND IT WOULD HAVE COST $6,000 TO PUT CENTRAL HEAT AND AIR. IT ONLY HAD 600 SQUARE FEET, A LITTLE SMALL BUILDING, THAT NEVER WAS RENTED. A LADY NAMED SALLY SMITH, FROM THE TIME MS. PAULINE MOVED TO ORANGEBURG IN '74 UNTIL HER DEATH JUNE 11TH OF '86, SALLY SMITH OF THE ALRIGHT AGENCY HANDLED THE RENTALS AND SENT THE RENTAL CHECK TO MR. DANTZLER. I WAS TAKING HANDS OFF INSOFAR AS THE ESTATE OF MRS. KNIGHT, WITH THE NORMAL THING THAT WAS DONE WHILE SHE WAS LIVING, YOU KNOW WHEN SHE WAS IN THE NURSING HOME AND BEFORE AND THEN, BUT HER MOTHER HAD LEFT SOME PROPERTY BACK IN 1940, THAT LITTLE STORE BUILDING ON MAIN STREET, AND 60 ACRES OUTSIDE OF TOWN, AND TWO OTHER RENTAL HOUSES THAT WENT TO SOME--IT WAS ENTAILED PROPERTY, THAT DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE ESTATE. I HAD TO EMPLOY TERRY POOLE TO SEARCH OUT WHO THAT BELONGED TO AND TO PASS A LEGAL OPINION ON WHICH PROPERTY BELONGED TO WHO BECAUSE I WASN'T GOING TO ATTEMPT TO W THAT.

Q     I PROBABLY GOT YOU OFF ON THE WRONG FOOT WITH MY QUESTION, WHAT I GUESS I AM TRYING TO ASK YOU IS WHEN YOUR DAUGHTERS INHERIT AND GET SOMETHING, IF THEY EVER DO, DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THEY WILL GET?

A     ONE HOUSE HAS BEEN SOLD FOR 18, ASSUME THERE IS $7,000 IN THE ESTATE ACCOUNT AND THE OTHER HOUSE IS PROBABLY WORTH ANOTHER $18,000, THAT WOULD BE $36,000 PLUS 7 WOULD BE 43, AND THE ESTATE OVER IN ORANGEBURG, THE LAST ACCOUNTING TO MY KNOWLEDGE THAT WAS FILED ABOUT IN '85 THERE WAS $45,000 IN THERE, AND THAT HOUSE IS ASSESSED OR APPRAISED AT MAYBE 39, $40,000 THAT WE HAVE BEEN PAYING THE MORTGAGE PAYMENT EVERY MONTH AND GOT A BILL FOR $504 FOR TAXES FOR ORANGEBURG COUNTY AND $1,400 A YEAR FOR INSURANCE. YOU KNOW, IF AS EARLIER ALLEGED TODAY, PEOPLE WERE BEING GREEDY AND TRYING TO GRAB, SOMETHING WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE WITH THAT, BUT NOBODY HAS TRIED TO BE HASTY OR GATHER IN THE SHEAVES.

SENATOR SMITH: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE MCEACHIN:

Q     JUDGE PEEPLES, WHEN YOU SENT THE LETTER OF NOVEMBER 6, 1983 TO MR. KELLY, WHAT WAS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO PAULINE KNIGHT AT THAT TIME?

A     WELL, I WAS THE EXECUTOR IN HER WILL WHICH SPEAKS ONLY AT DEATH, BUT I CONSIDERED MYSELF TO BE IN A FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH HER. I KNOW THE WORD, MR. MCEACHIN, IN LOCO PARENTIS IS LIKE PARENT TO CHILD. I AM AT A LOSS TO GIVE YOU A LATIN PHRASE FOR THE RELATIONSHIP, BUT WE WERE CARING FOR HER, RESPONSIBLE FOR HER TO SEE THAT HER NEEDS WERE MET AND SHE WAS CARED FOR.

Q     IN THE LETTER OF NOVEMBER 6 IN WHICH YOU READ EXCERPTS FROM, IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH ON THE FIRST PAGE YOU SET FORTH--I WILL READ A PORTION OF IT "IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT YOU LEGALLY MUST PAY THE $300 PER MONTH TO PAULINE FROM HER LIFETIME"?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     IN YOUR OPINION DOES THAT CONSTITUTE THE PRACTICE OF LAW?

A     GEE, I HOPE NOT.

Q     WHAT DID YOU THINK AT THE TIME YOU WROTE THAT LETTER?

A     I CERTAINLY DIDN'T THINK ABOUT PRACTICING LAW, SIR. I WAS TRYING TO REASON WITH HIM AS TO WHY I THOUGHT THE $300 SHOULD BE PAID AND TO TRY TO AVOID LITIGATION AND ARGUMENT ABOUT IT.

Q     WHEN YOU WERE TESTIFYING IN THE ACTUAL TRIAL OF KELLY V. KNIGHT, THERE WAS A SERIES OF QUESTIONS WHICH EVERYBODY HAS ASKED ABOUT REGARDING THE WILL OF MRS. KNIGHT. WHY DIDN'T YOU RAISE THE LAWYER-CLIENT ISSUE AT THAT TIME RATHER THAN SAYING "NO, SIR, I HAVE NO INTEREST OTHER THAN TRYING TO PROTECT THIS OLD LADY"?

A     I DIDN'T HAVE TO RAISE IT. JUDGE COTTINGHAM AND MR. NESS OBJECTED TO IT; JUDGE COTTINGHAM STOPPED IT.

Q     WHEN THE QUESTION WAS INITIALLY ASKED TO YOU BY MR. BRYANT, DID IT OCCUR TO YOU AT THAT TIME TO SAY "MR. BRYANT, I DREW THE WILL. THERE WAS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ME AND MRS. KNIGHT OF ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. I CAN'T ANSWER OR RESPOND TO THE QUESTION"?

A     NO, SIR, THAT DID NOT OCCUR TO ME EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A TOUGH SITUATION, MR. MCEACHIN, BECAUSE I COULDN'T REVEAL THE CONTENTS OF THE WILL SO IT WAS A CATCH-22. I FELT I HAD NO LEGAL INTEREST AT THE TIME.

Q     LET ME ASK YOU THIS, WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE PHRASE "INTEREST IN THIS MATTER" IN THE CONTEXT THAT IT WAS ASKED, THAT WAS PART OF MR. BRYANT'S QUESTION "DO YOU HAVE ANY INTEREST IN THIS MATTER UNDER THE WILL"?

A     I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS OF INTEREST ON DECEMBER 4TH OF 1985, MR. MCEACHIN, BUT THAT WAS OVER TWO YEARS AGO, I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT WENT THROUGH MY MIND WHAT WAS MEANT BY INTEREST. IF I COULD, I WOULD SHARE THAT WITH YOU.

Q     WHAT DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOUR TESTIMONY IN THE CASE ADDED TO THE KNIGHT ET AL SIDE OF THAT CASE?

A     ONLY THE FACT THAT DEMAND HAD BEEN MADE FOR PAYMENT AND IT HAD NOT BEEN FORTHCOMING.

Q     HAD MR. DANTZLER, DID HE TESTIFY IN THAT CASE?

A     YES.

Q     WAS HE ASKED THAT QUESTION?

A     I DO NOT RECALL. I DO NOT RECALL IF HE HAD OR NOT.

REP. MCEACHIN: THAT IS ALL I HAVE.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS:

Q     JUDGE PEEPLES, LET ME BEGIN BY SAYING THAT BASED ON WHAT YOU HAVE NOW GIVEN TO US IT DOES SEEM TO ME THERE WAS AT LEAST A JUSTICIABLE ISSUE TO WARRANT SOME LITIGATION. HOWEVER, I AM STILL DEEPLY TROUBLED BY SEVERAL THINGS. NUMBER ONE, AS I INDICATED EARLIER, I AM TROUBLED BY YOUR DRAWING A WILL BY WHICH YOUR CHILDREN BENEFITTED. IS IT THE PRACTICE IN THE BARNWELL BAR FOR A LAWYER TO DRAW WILLS BENEFITTING EITHER HIMSELF OR HIS FAMILY?

A     I WOULD HAVE NO IDEA AS TO WHAT THE PRACTICE IN THAT REGARD WOULD BE IN THE BARNWELL AREA OR ANY OTHER AREA, MR. ROGERS. I CAN ONLY TELL YOU BECAUSE OF THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PREVAILED AND EXISTED IN THIS SITUATION THAT IT WAS DONE. I HAVEN'T DRAWN A WILL OBVIOUSLY IN 13 YEARS SINCE I HAVE BEEN ON THE BENCH AND I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY OTHER SITUATION WHERE A WILL SUCH AS THIS WAS DRAWN, IF THAT HELPS YOU.

Q     DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE CANONS OF ETHICS PROHIBIT THE DRAWING BY A LAWYER OF WILLS WHICH BENEFIT EITHER THE LAWYER OR HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY?

A     I THINK THAT THERE IS A CAVEAT THERE, THAT IT IS A DELICATE SITUATION IN WHICH ONE MUST TREAD VERY CAREFULLY, AND I FEEL THAT I DID IN THIS SITUATION FULLY APPRISE HER THAT I VERY MUCH WOULD PREFER NOT TO BE THE EXECUTOR AND TO PREFER NOT TO HAVE MY CHILDREN AS THIS RESIDUAL BENEFICIARY, BUT A SITUATION IN WHICH SHE INSISTED.

Q     THE CANON, AS I AM SURE YOU ARE AWARE, STATES THAT OTHER THAN IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES A LAWYER SHOULD INSIST THAT AN INSTRUMENT IN WHICH HIS CLIENT DESIRES TO NAME HIM BENEFICIARY BE PREPARED BY ANOTHER LAWYER SELECTED BY THE CLIENT. WHAT WERE THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT CAUSED YOU TO DRAW THAT WILL?

A     I TRIED, MR. ROGERS, TO HAVE SOMEONE ELSE DRAW IT AND SHE WOULDN'T LET ANYBODY ELSE DRAW THAT WILL.

Q     JUDGE PEEPLES, I ALSO AM DEEPLY TROUBLED BY YOUR TESTIMONY AND IN THE HEARING IN BARNWELL. YOU HAVE TOLD US THAT YOU FELT YOU COULD NOT REVEAL THE CONTENTS OF THE WILL AND, YET, IN 1983 PRIOR TO THE DEATH OF YOUR FRIEND YOU HAD ADDRESSED LETTERS, OR AT LEAST WE HAVE NOW YOU FURNISHED US WITH A LETTER, URGING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN PAYMENT ON THIS LEASE.

A     YES, SIR.

Q     FROM YOUR TESTIMONY A FEW MOMENTS AGO I WOULD HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT YOU WERE TAKING THE POSITION THAT YOU HAD NO INTEREST AT ALL IN THAT MATTER AND THAT THAT WAS THE IMPORT OF YOUR ANSWER TO MR. BRYANT'S QUESTION THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

A     DEPENDS ON SEMANTICALLY HOW YOU INTERPRET "INTEREST." SURELY IN ANSWERING THAT QUESTION, THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS I DID HAVE AN INTEREST IN TRYING TO HELP THAT LADY AS I SAID WHEN I ANSWERED THE QUESTION. AS FAR AS ME PERSONALLY HAVING ANY PECUNIARY INTEREST, I DID NOT HAVE A LEGAL INTEREST AT THAT TIME, NOR DO I NOW HERE TODAY.

Q     BUT, JUDGE PEEPLES, YOU KNEW THAT YOUR CHILDREN WOULD INHERIT THE RESIDUAL ESTATE AT THE TIME YOU ANSWERED HIS QUESTION, DIDN'T YOU?

A     I CERTAINLY DID. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WOULD BE ANY ESTATE LEFT AND WASN'T CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS OR NOT. I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT HER WELL-BEING AND THE ABILITY FOR THOSE BILLS TO BE PAID FOR WHICH I WAS RESPONSIBLE.

Q     AND YOUR POSITION IS THAT YOUR ANSWER WAS MADE AND THE WAY IT WAS MADE WAS BECAUSE YOU COULD NOT REVEAL THE CONTENTS OF THAT WILL?

A     THERE ISN'T ANY QUESTION ABOUT IT. HOW COULD I HAVE, SIR?

Q     WHO WOULD BE INJURED BY YOUR REVEALING THE CONTENTS OF THAT WILL?

A     YOU JUST CAN'T REVEAL THE CONTENTS OF A LIVING PERSON'S WILL AND SHE IS OUT THERE IN THE NURSING HOME.

Q     WAS SHE COMPETENT AT THAT TIME?

A     NO, SIR, SHE WAS NOT IN '85. SHE WAS NOT COMPETENT.

Q     AFTER THAT TIME WAS SHE EVER COMPETENT BEFORE HER DEATH?

A     AFTER DECEMBER THE 4TH OF '85 UNTIL HER DEATH OF JUNE 11 OF '86, NO, SIR, VERY SAD, POOR STATE OF HEALTH.

Q     AT WHAT TIME WAS MRS. KNIGHT FOUND TO BE NOT COMPETENT?

A     SHE NEVER WAS FOUND TO BE NOT COMPETENT, MR. ROGERS. AFTER SHE BROKE HER HIP IN 1983 AND WENT TO THE NURSING HOME SHE WASN'T AMBULATORY AND HER HEALTH BEGAN TO FAIL SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER OF 1983 AND THEN HER MIND OVER A PERIOD OF TIME IT WOULD COME AND IT WOULD GO, BUT THE LAST YEAR OF HER LIFE SHE COULD ONLY TALK TO YOU WITH HER EYES. SHE WOULD KNOW WHO IT WAS WHEN YOU VISITED WITH HER AND YOU COULD LOOK AT HER EYES AND KNOW THAT SHE KNEW THAT BUT SHE WASN'T ABLE TO COMMUNICATE, SIR.

Q     TWO OTHER QUESTIONS I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THIS MATTER. EARLY ON IN YOUR CAREER AS A JUDGE YOU APPARENTLY APPEARED AT A POLITICAL RALLY AND MADE A SPEECH AND THE PRESS HAS REPORTED JUDGE LEWIS CORRECTED YOU FOR MAKING THAT APPEARANCE. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS ON THAT.

A     ALL RIGHT, SIR. I HAPPEN TO HAVE IN FILE NUMBER 17 A COPY OF CHIEF JUSTICE LEWIS' REMARKS, IF I MAY PASS THOSE OUT TO YOU.

SENATOR SMITH: I WOULD ASK YOU, JUDGE, HOW MANY FILES YOU HAVE?

A     TWENTY-FOUR. IF YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE SECOND PAGE OF THAT, PLEASE, BECAUSE THE FIRST PAGE HAD TO DO WITH A MEETING WITH COUNTY COUNCIL IN WHICH CHIEF JUSTICE LEWIS HAD SAID IT WAS A LEGITIMATE JUDICIAL CONCERN WHETHER OR NOT JURORS WERE PROMPTLY PAID OR WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD BE PAID A MONTH LATER, AND THE SECOND PAGE IS PERTINENT TO YOUR INQUIRY, AND I WILL READ CHIEF JUSTICE LEWIS' STATEMENT. "THERE HAS ALSO BEEN REFERRED TO ME FOR ATTENTION A FURTHER LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 1977 ADDRESSED TO THE HONORABLE DAN MCLEOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN WHICH JUDGE PEEPLES IS CHARGED WITH HAVING ATTENDED A POLITICAL GATHERING IN AIKEN COUNTY AND HAVING MADE A SPEECH ON BEHALF OF CERTAIN CANDIDATES OFFERING FOR POLITICAL OFFICES. I TALKED WITH JUDGE PEEPLES ABOUT THESE CHARGES AND HE CONCEDES THAT HE MADE SHORT, IMPROMPTU REMARKS AT A BARBECUE WHICH, ALTHOUGH NOT INTENDED, WERE SUBJECT TO THE INTERPRETATION THAT HE IMPROPERLY ENGAGED IN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES. THIS WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE CANONS OF JUDICIAL ETHICS WHICH FORBID THE PARTICIPATION OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY IN SUCH POLITICAL ACTIVITIES. JUDGE PEEPLES NOW RECOGNIZES THIS AND HAS GIVEN ASSURANCE THAT IT WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. MY HIGH ESTIMATE OF THE ABILITY AND INTEGRITY OF JUDGE PEEPLES CONVINCES ME THAT THE PRESENT DISPOSITION OF THIS MATTER ASSURES ADHERENCE TO THE HIGHEST ETHICAL STANDARDS OF THE JUDICIARY AND RENDERS FURTHER ACTION UNNECESSARY."

WHAT HAD HAPPENED WAS THIS, MR. ROGERS, I WAS HOLDING COURT IN AIKEN AND IT WAS NOT A POLITICAL RALLY, THERE WERE NO TICKETS SOLD, THERE WERE NO INVITATIONS SENT OUT, IT WAS OUT AT A POND THAT BELONGED TO MY FRIEND PEE WEE WILLING THAT RUNS A JUNKYARD OUT THERE NEAR AIKEN AND THERE WERE 40 OR 50 FELLOWS THERE AND THEY BARBECUED A HOG, AND I WENT OUT THERE TO EAT SOME BARBECUE, AND PEE WEE IS NOT A LAWYER, HE IS A JUNKYARD DEALER, AND SHERIFF PAUL GRANT, WHO WAS THEN SHERIFF, WAS OUT THERE AT THAT MEETING AND SOMEBODY ASKED ME WHAT I THOUGHT OF SHERIFF PAUL GRANT AND I SAID "I THINK HE IS A GOOD FELLOW AND I THINK HE IS A LAW AND ORDER SHERIFF." THAT IS THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF MY IMPROMPTU REMARKS WHICH COULD BE CONCLUDED THAT I ENGAGED IN POLITICS, AND I DID NOT CONSTRUE THAT AS BEING A REPRIMAND FROM CHIEF JUSTICE LEWIS.

Q     I TREATED IT AS HAVING BEEN A COMPLIMENT TO YOU.

A     IT WAS REPORTED IN THE PRESS I WAS ASKED IF I EVER HAD BEEN PRIVATELY REPRIMANDED, AND I SAID "CERTAINLY NOT," THAT WAS MY ANSWER, AND THEN IT SAYS THAT CHIEF JUSTICE LEWIS HAD REPRIMANDED ME, BUT I DON'T CONSTRUE THAT TO BE A REPRIMAND. IF YOU DO, THEN YOU DO.

Q     THE OTHER AREA THAT I WOULD LIKE, AND MY FINAL QUESTION, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU TO COMMENT ON, THERE HAS BEEN A REFERENCE AT SOME PLACE TO YOUR RECEIVING A GIFT OF A CONFISCATED GUN IN RICHLAND COUNTY IN '76 OR '77, WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT?

A     SURELY, I SHALL. IT WASN'T A CONFISCATED GUN. IT WAS A BRAND NEW 38 SMITH AND WESSON. I HAD BEEN ASSIGNED BY CHIEF JUSTICE LEWIS TO BE IN COLUMBIA FOR SIX MONTHS FROM JANUARY 1 OF '77 TO JUNE 30 OF '77 EXCLUSIVELY TO PRESIDE OVER THE GENERAL SESSIONS COURT, AND I AM TELLING YOU JIM ANDERS AND DICK HARPOOTLIAN, MYSELF, THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE, WE WORKED DAY AND NIGHT FOR SIX MONTHS TO TRY TO REDUCE THE POPULATION IN THE JAIL AND TO TRY TO DISPOSE OF CASES. IT SEEMED LIKE THEY HAD SAVED EVERY ARMED ROBBERY AND MURDER AND EVERY OTHER BAD CASE THEY HAD EVER HAD FILED UP HERE AND I WAS SENT UP HERE FOR SIX MONTHS OF THAT TYPE OF DUTY.

AS I WAS FINISHING THAT SIX-MONTH ASSIGNMENT ONE DAY, I WANT TO SAY CHIEF CAMPBELL BUT I STAND TO BE CORRECTED, BUT THE CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA WALKED IN MY OFFICE AND SAID "JUDGE, WE LAW ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE HERE IN COLUMBIA APPRECIATE VERY MUCH YOUR EFFORTS, YOUR LONG, LATE HOURS, YOUR HARD WORK, WE TOOK UP SOME MONEY AND WE BOUGHT THIS PRESENT FOR YOU," AND I OPENED IT AND IT HAD "HONORABLE RODNEY A. PEEPLES" ENGRAVED ON THE HANDLE. IT WAS A BRAND NEW SMITH AND WESSON THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME BY THE CITY OF COLUMBIA, AND I THINK THERE WAS SOME RESTRICTION ABOUT IT, REPORTING A GIFT OF OVER $100, SO I CHECKED AND I RECALL THE COST WAS $78 OR $79, AND THAT IS WHAT I KNOW ABOUT THAT, MR. ROGERS. FORTUNATELY I HAVE NEVER HAD TO DEFEND MYSELF WITH IT, BUT I WAS VERY HONORED BY THAT SHOW OF GRATITUDE BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE IN RICHLAND COUNTY OR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA.

MR. ROGERS: THANK YOU, SIR.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     JUDGE, WHO IS MR. BERRY IN THIS--THE GENTLEMAN REFERRED TO AS MR. BERRY?

A     ANDREW BERRY WAS THE ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED WILL KELLY AT THE PROBATE COURT HEARING DECEMBER 16 OF '83 AT WHICH TIME THE PROBATE COURT ORDERED HIM REMOVED AS EXECUTOR. ANDREW BERRY APPARENTLY HAD DONE TAX WORK THROUGH THE YEARS FOR MR. WILKES KNIGHT AND HAD DONE SOME TAX WORK, I DON'T KNOW THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF IT, FOR MR. WILL KELLY, AND HE HAD DRAWN THE WILL FOR MR. WILKES KNIGHT IN OCTOBER OF '73 AND HE HAD DRAWN THE WILL FOR MR. WILKES KNIGHT OF AUGUST 9 OF '83, SIR, AND I DON'T THINK HE IS AN ACTIVE PRACTITIONER. I THINK HE PRIMARILY DEALS WITH INCOME TAX WORK.

Q     HE WAS REFERRED TO EARLIER I BELIEVE AS AN ACCOUNTANT?

A     YES, SIR. HE MIGHT WELL BE. I KNOW HE DOES TAX WORK FOR PEOPLE. WHETHER HE IS A C.P.A. OR BOOKKEEPER ACCOUNTANT, I DON'T KNOW.

Q     THE LAST WILL BY MR. KNIGHT, WHO DRAFTED THAT WILL?

A     MR. ANDREW BERRY, AND WITNESSED IT.

Q     AND THE ORIGINAL WILL?

A     MR. ANDREW BERRY.

Q     NOW WHAT WAS MR. BERRY'S POSITION ON THE LEGAL OBLIGATION?

A     ON THE $300 A MONTH PAYMENT?

Q     ON THE $300 A MONTH PAYMENT. WHERE DID HE STAND ON THIS?

A     WITH WILL KELLY'S PERMISSION, BECAUSE, SEE, I HAD NO STANDING TO GO TALK TO MR. WILKES KNIGHT'S ACCOUNTANT OR LOOK AT HIS TAX RECORDS OR ANYTHING ELSE. WITH WILL KELLY'S PERMISSION I WENT BY AND TALKED TO MR. ANDREW BERRY AND MADE NOTES OF MY CONVERSATION WITH HIM AND I ASKED HIM "WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS $300? IS IT OWED, WAS IT FORGIVEN, WAS IT INADVERTENTLY PUT IN THE WILL?" HE COULDN'T TELL ME THAT. HE SAID "YOU KNOW, IT WAS REPORTED ON HIS TAX RETURNS FOR SO MANY YEARS AS 3600 I THINK FOR RENT OR LEASE PAYMENT AND THEN I DO HAVE"--THIS IS MR. BERRY TALKING--"A PENCIL NOTATION GIFT," AND HE TESTIFIED TO THIS IN 1985, BUT HE SAID "ON THE OTHER HAND, I PUT THAT IN HIS WILL IN AUGUST OF 1983 AND HE TOLD ME HE DIDN'T KNOW IF THE $300 DEBT WAS FORGIVEN OR IF THE $300 DEBT WAS OWED." THAT IS WHAT MR. ANDREW BERRY TOLD ME IN NOVEMBER OF 1983, SIR.

Q     EARLIER IN THE DAY, UNLESS I HEARD WRONG, I BELIEVE MR. BRYANT INDICATED THAT YOU WERE INFORMED THAT THERE WAS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE BOTH FROM KELLY AND BERRY ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THIS OBLIGATION, IS THAT ALL YOU KNEW THEN AT THAT POINT WAS THAT IT MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST?

A     MAY OR MAY NOT BE A VALID DEBT, THAT'S CORRECT, BECAUSE MR. KELLY, CONTRARY TO WHAT MR. BRYANT SAID, ALL HE WOULD TELL ME IS "I DON'T OWE IT." I DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO MR. WILKES KNIGHT'S TAX RECORDS. I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY OF HIS CANCELED CHECKS OR TAX RETURNS. I HAD NO STANDING TO GET ANY OF THOSE, BUT ALL HE TOLD ME IS THAT IT WASN'T OWED, AND I JUST LOOKED AT THAT WILL MADE 13 DAYS BEFORE HIS DEATH AND IN THOSE IN CAUSA MORTIS SITUATIONS WHERE YOU FEEL YOU ARE LEAVING, I AM TOLD, I HAVE NEVER HAD THAT FEELING AND HOPE DON'T HAVE IT SOON, THAT YOU START WORRYING ABOUT WHO IS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF YOUR WIDOW AND PAY THE $300 OR WHATEVER.

Q     AT THE TIME YOU WENT OVER THERE, WHO WAS THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE?

A     WILL KELLY.

Q     HE WAS STILL THE EXECUTOR AT THAT TIME?

A     YES, SIR, IN NOVEMBER OF '83, YES, SIR, AND HE REMAINED EXECUTOR UNTIL IT WAS FINALIZED BY THE SUPREME COURT JUNE 16 OF '86.

Q     WAS HE REMOVED?

A     YES, SIR. BY ORDER OF JANUARY 3, '84 OF THE PROBATE COURT, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THAT WILL, HE IS THE EXECUTOR AND THEN THE WILL SAYS THAT I AM GIVING THESE LEASES AND LAUNDROMAT EQUIPMENT TO WILL KELLY CONDITIONED UPON HIS PAYING THAT $300. WELL, MR. KELLY HAD AN INHERENT CONFLICT, NOT BROUGHT ABOUT BY HIMSELF, NO WRONGDOING ON MR. KELLY'S PART DON'T MISUNDERSTAND ME, BUT HE WASN'T GOING TO SUE HIMSELF TO SEE IF THAT $300 THAT WAS IN THAT WILL WAS OWED OR NOT.

Q     SO WHO BECAME THE EXECUTOR AFTER HIM?

A     HASN'T HAD ONE.

Q     HASN'T HAD ONE?

A     NO, SIR. WELL, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF MR. BRYANT'S SAYS HE WAS REAPPOINTED DECEMBER 4, BUT THAT IS WITHOUT ANY NOTICE TO ME AS PAULINE'S EXECUTOR OR TO THE BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE WILL, BUT THAT IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE.

Q     DID YOU SIGN FOR THE NURSING HOME BILL FOR MRS. KNIGHT?

A     I HAD TO, YES, SIR.

Q     SO IF THE ESTATE DIDN'T PAY IT, WOULD YOU HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR IT?

A     YES, SIR, WITHOUT QUESTION.

Q     DID YOU VISIT MRS. KNIGHT WHEN SHE WAS AT THE NURSING HOME?

A     YES, SIR. I VISITED HER BUT MY WIFE IS THE ONE THAT WENT OUT THERE THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK BECAUSE I WAS ON THE ROAD HOLDING COURT AND MY MOTHER SUFFERED FOR THREE YEARS FROM A TERMINAL CANCER AND IT KIND OF UPSET ME. I DIDN'T GO OUT THERE AS OFTEN AS MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE, BUT MY WIFE DID THAT.

Q     NEXT QUESTION, YOU INDICATED VENUE WAS NOT REALLY IMPORTANT AS TO WHICH COUNTY BECAUSE IT WAS BEING HEARD AS A NON-JURY TRIAL. MY QUESTION I GUESS TO YOU IS WHY DID YOU EXECUTE AN AFFIDAVIT, OR DID YOU EXECUTE AN AFFIDAVIT?

A     I DID EXECUTE AN AFFIDAVIT. I EXPECTED TO BE CALLED AS A WITNESS AND MY RESIDENCE WAS BARNWELL, BUT THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER MRS. KNIGHT WAS A RESIDENT OF BARNWELL COUNTY, BUT MR. BRYANT BROUGHT IT IN ORANGEBURG WHERE THE POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FACT LIVED, AND THERE IS NO LAW THAT I WAS EVER ABLE TO FIND THAT DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN WHETHER THE PROPER VENUE BE FOR THE PERSON WHO HAS THE POWER OF ATTORNEY OR FOR THE PERSON THAT IS THE PRIMARY PARTY TO THE SUIT, WHICH WAS MRS. KNIGHT, BUT, SEE, WHEN THOSE OTHER PEOPLE SIGNED THOSE AFFIDAVITS, IT WAS UNDETERMINED UNKNOWN WHETHER THEY WOULD BE NECESSARY--THE NURSE, THE PEOPLE OUT AT THE NURSING HOME, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD BE CALLED, WHETHER DR. CLAYTOR WOULD BE CALLED AS TO HER MENTAL COMPETENCY OR WHAT.

Q     THE NEXT THING I HAVE GOT IS GOING TO THE EVENING OF THE COURT TRIAL YOU SAID YOU WERE BACK THERE AND MET JUDGE COTTINGHAM AS HE WAS COMING IN AND YOU SAID THAT YOU--

A     NO, SIR. LET ME INTERRUPT YOU IF I MAY. I DIDN'T MEET HIM WHEN HE WAS COMING IN. WHEN I GOT THERE, I WENT DOWN THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR OF THE COURTHOUSE AND WENT DOWN THE HALL AND WENT UP THE BACKSTEPS, THE ONLY STEPS TO THE UPSTAIRS COURTROOM AND I WALKED IN TO MY LIBRARY AND HE WAS IN MY OFFICE, AND I PUT MY BOOKS DOWN, MY CHARGE BOOKS AND MY BRIEFCASE, AND I PICKED UP MY FILE AND SAID "HELLO" TO JUDGE COTTINGHAM AND WE WALKED INTO THE HALL, AND FROM THE HALL THERE ARE TWO ENTRANCES TO THE COURTROOM, ONE BY THE COURT REPORTER AND ONE BY THE OTHER. JUDGE COTTINGHAM KNEW I WAS A JUDGE. IF I WENT IN PIGGY BACK ON HIS SHOULDERS, THAT WASN'T GOING TO HAVE INFLUENCED ANYBODY, SENATOR MCCONNELL.

Q     MY QUESTION THOUGH IS WHAT FILE WAS IT THAT YOU PICKED UP?

A     THE FILE OF KELLY VERSUS KNIGHT.

Q     THIS CASE, YOU KEPT A FILE ON THIS PARTICULAR MATTER?

A     SURE, I DID; SURE, I DID.

Q     AND THE QUESTION, I BELIEVE IT WAS FROM SENATOR SMITH, I DON'T HAVE A CALCULATOR HERE AND I GUESS MY BRAIN IS GETTING A LITTLE BIT RUSTY, BUT YOU WERE SPITTING ALL THOSE FIGURES OUT OF $12,000 HERE AND A LITTLE BIT FROM THIS HOUSE AND A LITTLE BIT FROM THAT HOUSE. IN A NUTSHELL APPROXIMATION WHAT IS THE ESTATE THAT YOUR TWO DAUGHTERS WOULD INHERIT, AN APPROXIMATE TOTAL WHAT CAN WE EXPECT, NOT BREAKING IT DOWN INTO ITS COMPONENT PARTS, BUT JUST AN APPROXIMATION?

A     SENATOR MCCONNELL, FROM WHAT MS. PAULINE HAD IN BARNWELL THERE IS FIVE TO SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT, THOSE TWO HOUSES WERE APPRAISED AT $43,000, ONE HAS BEEN SOLD FOR 18 AND MY GUESS IS THE OTHER WOULD BE SOLD FROM 18 TO 20. I WOULD SAY 40 AT THE OUTSIDE FOR THE TWO HOUSES, SO IF THE 7000 CASH AND 40,000 FOR THE TWO HOUSES, THAT WOULD BE $47,000.

Q     HOW ABOUT THE PART OF MRS. KNIGHT'S DECEASED HUSBAND'S ESTATE THAT WOULD BE COMING IN THERE?

A     THERE IS A HOUSE OVER THERE AND SHE PAID HALF, HE PAID HALF AND SHE INHERITED HIS HALF. IT IS ASSESSED AT AROUND 39 TO 40,000 IS MY RECOLLECTION. IT'S BEEN VACANT FOR FOUR YEARS. IT'S A SMALL THREE-BEDROOM BRICK HOUSE THAT BACKS UP TO A LOW INCOME HOUSING NEIGHBORHOOD, ALBEIT IT'S ON ADDEN STREET ON THE WAY TO THE RIVER, I AM NOT SURE IF IT HAS ONE BATHROOM OR TWO. THERE IS PROBABLY $5,000 OWED ON THAT HOUSE. MY GUESS IS IF YOU GOT 35 TO 40 FOR THAT HOUSE, YOU WOULD BE INDEED FORTUNATE. THE LAST ACCOUNTING THAT WAS FILED SOME TWO YEARS AGO REFLECTED $45,000, OR MAYBE $44,000, WHICH MR. KELLY HAD AS EXECUTOR--THAT WAS ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, AND THAT IS AFTER SOME $5300 HAD BEEN PAID TO MR. BRYANT FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND $500 TO MR. BERRY, AND THERE IS ANOTHER--PAID HIMSELF $2,000 PLUS THE COMMISSIONS. I REALLY DON'T KNOW. I WOULD ASSUME THAT THAT HOUSE OVER THERE ASSUMING YOU GET 35 FOR IT NET AFTER YOU PAID THE MORTGAGES DUE ON IT, THE PAYMENTS ARE ABOUT $105 A MONTH, IS ONLY 3 OR 4,000.

Q     HOW MUCH IN CASH AND PERSONAL PROPERTY IS LEFT, DO YOU KNOW?

A     I WOULD SAY ABOUT $45,000. THAT IS THE LAST ACCOUNTING TWO YEARS AGO AND I ASSUME THAT IS AT 5 PERCENT INTEREST. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAS BEEN INVESTED IN THE PERSONAL ITEMS IN THE HOUSE. I THINK THEY WERE APPRAISED AT $2500.

Q     IN SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR SOME RECORDS INDICATE THERE WAS APPROXIMATELY $101,000. NOW, FROM THAT THERE WERE EXPENSES I TAKE IT AT LEAST ON WHAT I HEAR, THIS IS MR. KNIGHT'S ESTATE--EXCUSE ME, IN PAULINE KNIGHT'S TOTAL ESTATE WAS $101,000, THEN THE DEDUCTIONS FROM THAT, CORRECT?

A     THE DIFFERENCE IN THAT IS THAT THEY ARE INCLUDING THE HALF INTEREST THAT SHE AUTOMATICALLY OWNED NOT THROUGH THE ESTATE OF WILKES KNIGHT IN THAT $40,000 HOUSE, SEE, THAT IS WHERE THE DIFFERENCE COMES IN. THAT INFORMATION WAS SENT BY THE JUDGE OF PROBATE. SHE ALREADY OWNED A HALF INTEREST IN IT BEFORE MR. WILKES KNIGHT DIED.

Q     THE QUESTION I HAVE, WHICH IS THE THING THAT TROUBLES ME, IS THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED IN THAT HEARING. IT SAYS "JUDGE PEEPLES, DO YOU HAVE ANY INTEREST IN THIS MATTER," AND I DON'T MEAN TO BE REDUNDANT WITH THE SAME QUESTION, BUT WHEN YOU HEARD THAT QUESTION, "ANY INTEREST," AND IT SAID OTHER THAN THE FACT YOU WERE FRIENDS WITH MRS. PAULINE KNIGHT, DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION AS ANY INTEREST OR LEGAL INTEREST?

A     SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT QUESTION. I FELT THEN, AS I FEEL NOW, THAT I DIDN'T HAVE ANY INTEREST IN MRS. PAULINE KNIGHT'S ESTATE OR MRS. PAULINE KNIGHT OTHER THAN TRYING TO HELP THE LADY, AND I ANSWERED THE QUESTION KNOWING OF COURSE THAT I WAS THE EXECUTOR OF HER ESTATE BUT I DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER THERE WOULD BE ANYTHING IN HER ESTATE TO BEGIN WITH, BUT THAT IS IMMATERIAL, YOU DON'T GET TO THAT POINT. I COULDN'T HAVE REVEALED THE CONTENTS OF HER WILL. IT HAD NO BEARING WHATSOEVER ON THAT CASE.

Q     I GUESS MY LAST QUESTION IS IN THAT PARTICULAR HEARING WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY AS A WITNESS? WHAT MATERIAL PURPOSE DID YOUR TESTIMONY SERVE IN THAT NON-JURY MATTER?

A     TO TESTIFY THAT DEMAND HAD BEEN MADE TO PAY THE $300 AND IT HADN'T BEEN FORTHCOMING. AS I SAID EARLIER TODAY, IN RETROSPECT AND REFLECTION, HINDSIGHT THAT MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES.

Q     MY NEXT QUESTION IS WAS THAT EVEN IN ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE MONEY HAD BEEN PAID? WASN'T THE ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS AN OBLIGATION TO PAY?

A     THAT'S RIGHT.

SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY:

Q     YOU ARE NOT RELATED TO HER AT ALL?

A     NO, SIR, AND NOT TO MR. KNIGHT. HE WAS A FINE GENTLEMAN BUT THE PRESS HAD REPORTED THAT WAS MY STEPFATHER'S WIDOW AND THAT IS INCORRECT.

Q     YOU ARE IN NO WAY RELATED?

A     NO, SIR, NO BLOOD KIN OR NO MARRIED KIN.

Q     GOING THROUGH THE YEARS, THEY LIVED AS NEIGHBORS OF YOURS FOR TWO YEARS?

A     YES.

Q     WHAT YEAR WAS THAT?

A     1972 AND '73.

Q     THEY MOVED TO ORANGEBURG, IS THAT CORRECT?

A     IN EARLY '74 IS MY BEST RECOLLECTION, THAT'S RIGHT.

Q     AND LIVED THERE HOW LONG?

A     IN ORANGEBURG?

Q     YES.

A     THEY LIVED THERE UNTIL THE DEATH OF MR. WILKES KNIGHT ON AUGUST 22ND OF '83 AND, OF COURSE, MRS. KNIGHT HAD TO BE PUT IN A NURSING HOME IN JUNE WITH A BROKEN HIP AND SHE MOVED BACK OVER TO BARNWELL BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE SHE WANTED TO BE AND THAT IS WHERE WE COULD LOOK AFTER HER.

Q     DID YOU ALL VISIT A GREAT DEAL FROM THE TIME SHE LEFT BARNWELL AND WHEN THEY MOVED TO ORANGEBURG, IN THOSE YEARS DID YOU VISIT EACH OTHER A GREAT DEAL?

A     NOT MORE THAN THREE OR FOUR TIMES A YEAR. REALLY THEY VISITED US MORE THAN WE VISITED THEM BECAUSE THEY WOULD COME BACK TO BARNWELL TO CHECK ON HER RENTAL PROPERTY AND THEY WOULD STOP BY. THEY VISITED US.

Q     HOW OLD WAS SHE WHEN SHE MADE THE WILL?

A     I WOULD SAY 68. SHE WAS 80 WHEN SHE EXPIRED IN 1986, SO SUBTRACT 12 FROM THAT, SO I WOULD SAY 68.

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ARTHUR:

Q     JUDGE PEEPLES, YOU SAY THAT THE KNIGHTS LIVED NEXT TO YOU FOR APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     AND PRIOR TO THAT DID YOU REPRESENT HER?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER YOU REPRESENTED HER FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, RIGHT?

A     YES, SIR, FROM 1964.

Q     SO I MEAN YOU KNEW HER VERY WELL, YOU HAVE TESTIFIED YOU KNEW HER?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     YOU KNEW THE FAMILY FOR SOME TIME PRIOR TO THAT?

A     YES, SIR.

REP. ARTHUR: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

SENATOR LOURIE: NO QUESTIONS.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MARTIN:

Q     JUDGE, ONE QUESTION. DID I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY THAT THE ESTATE HAS PAID ATTORNEY FEES FOR MR. BRYANT, FIVE OR SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS? WAS HE REPRESENTING THE ESTATE IN ALL THIS LITIGATION OR THE INDIVIDUAL EXECUTOR?

A     HE WAS DEFENDING A DEBT ALLEGEDLY OWED BY THE EXECUTOR IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, SIR.

Q     AND THE ESTATE HAS PAID THAT FEE?

A     YES, SIR. THERE HAS BEEN NO HEARING ON THAT AND NO DETERMINATION AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF IT, AND THERE HAS BEEN SOME COMMISSIONS PAID OUT AND OTHER--

SENATOR MARTIN: I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

SENATOR SMITH: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE?

REP. GENTRY: JUST ONE MORE.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY:

Q     JUDGE PEEPLES, THEY MOVED TO BARNWELL COUNTY IN 1964?

A     NO, SIR. THEY DIDN'T MOVE TO BARNWELL IN '64. MR. KNIGHT WAS LIVING IN ORANGEBURG IN '64 AND MS. PAULINE WAS LIVING IN BARNWELL.

Q     THIS WAS HER THIRD MARRIAGE?

A     NO, SIR. THIS WAS THE FOURTH. HER FIRST HUSBAND GOT KILLED IN WORLD WAR II AND HER SECOND HUSBAND GOT KILLED AND SHE HAD BEEN DIVORCED IN 1966, I HANDLED THAT DIVORCE FOR HER AND THAT WAS HER FOURTH MARRIAGE. I BELIEVE IT WAS MR. WILKES' THIRD MARRIAGE. I THINK HIS SECOND WIFE HAD EXPIRED. I AM NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED TO HIS FIRST WIFE. HE WAS OLDER THAN SHE.

Q     WHEN THEY GOT MARRIED, THEY LIVED IN WHAT COUNTY?

A     WELL, THEY LIVED IN BARNWELL COUNTY, THEN THEY MOVED TO ORANGEBURG IN DECEMBER OF '73-JANUARY OF '74 I WOULD SAY. THEY WERE LIVING IN ORANGEBURG AT THE TIME I DREW UP HER WILL IN APRIL OF '74. I KNOW THEY HAD MOVED OVER THERE BY THEN.

Q     DID THEY LIVE CLOSE TO YOU WHEN THEY GOT MARRIED?

A     NEXT DOOR ABOUT 20 FEET.

SENATOR SMITH: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE? (NO RESPONSE.)

A     I APOLOGIZE FOR KEEPING MRS. TOAL WAITING. YOU KNOW I THOUGHT I WAS BEING A GENTLEMAN BY TELLING JUDGE CONNOR, "JUDGE, WHY DON'T YOU BE SCREENED FIRST, YOU DON'T HAVE ANYBODY COMPLAINING." IF I HAD KNOWN SHE HAD SOME COMPLAINTS, I WOULD HAVE ASKED YOU TO GO FIRST, BUT I AM SORRY.

SENATOR SMITH: JUDGE, LET ME STATE TO THE COMMITTEE AND THE MEMBERS THAT IN PREPARING FOR THIS AND TALKING WITH THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE COMPLAINTS I GAVE CONFLICTING INSTRUCTIONS. I HAVE TOLD MR. BRYANT AS I RECALL THAT THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A SHORT STATEMENT PROBABLY IN REBUTTAL, AND I TOLD JUDGE PEEPLES I WASN'T GOING TO LET THAT HAPPEN. I AM REMINDED OF A NON-JURY CASE I TRIED BEFORE JUDGE PEEPLES ONE TIME AND HE SAID HE HAD HEARD EVERYTHING BUT IN THE INTEREST OF BEING POLITE, I AM GOING TO HEAR FROM YOU ANYWAY. WE WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO HEAR FROM YOU TWO GENTLEMEN JUST IN CONNECTION WITH ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO VERY BRIEFLY. I ASK MR. HEATH FIRST.

MR. HEATH: THANK YOU, SENATOR SMITH. I DIDN'T HAVE MY HAND ON THE BIBLE BUT IT IS THE SAME WHEN I RAISED MY HAND.

SENATOR SMITH: WE UNDERSTAND THAT.

MR. HEATH: AND I WOULDN'T RAISE MY HAND AND SWEAR ON THE BIBLE IF I WASN'T TELLING THE TRUTH. WHAT JUDGE PEEPLES TOLD YOU WAS ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT. WHAT I HAD IN THAT LETTER, THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. NOW I AM NOT BEING SCREENED. HE SAID I WAS A MAGISTRATE FOR EIGHT YEARS AND THAT I WAS TRIED FOR EMBEZZLEMENT AND ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE A MAN LIKE THAT? YOU TALK TO THE SHERIFF AND YOU ASK THE SHERIFF WHAT KIND OF CITIZEN IS CHARLIE HEATH IN FAIRFIELD COUNTY, IS HE A CHURCHMAN? HE IS A RULING ELDER OF THE FIRST CALVARY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, I AM ALSO A CLERK OF SESSIONS. I SPENT THREE YEARS, NINE MONTHS, EIGHT DAYS IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY WITH A PERFECT RECORD. I WAS A MAGISTRATE EIGHT YEARS AND HANDLED OVER HALF A MILLION DOLLARS, NOTHING WAS MISSING. HERE'S A CHECK THAT WAS IN THE BANK OF FAIRFIELD WHERE I HAD MY MASTER'S ACCOUNT. TWO YEARS AFTER JOHN MARTIN REPRESENTED ME, SENATOR MARTIN, AND THEY FOUND OUT I DIDN'T OWE THE COUNTY NO MONEY, THIS CHECK WAS MADE BACK OUT TO CHARLIE HEATH, JR., AND I WANT TO REMIND YOU OF THIS. I WISH HE HAD CHECKED THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT TO SEE IF CHARLIE HEATH GOT A RECORD FOR D.U.I., CHECK THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN FAIRFIELD AND WINNSBORO AND SEE DOES CHARLIE HEATH HAVE A RECORD FOR D.U.I.?

SENATOR SMITH: MR. HEATH, AS YOU SAID, WE ARE NOT SCREENING YOU.

MR. HEATH: THAT'S RIGHT. HE IS THE ONE THAT WANTED TO MAKE ME A CRIMINAL. I WASN'T TRIED FOR NO EMBEZZLEMENT, MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS, AND YOU ALL DON'T KNOW BUT I WANT YOU TO BELIEVE THIS, THIS WAS A SET-UP ALL THE WAY AROUND, BUT IT IS JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT HAPPENED TO CHARLIE HEATH AND HE GOT CAUGHT UP IN IT. I'M NOT ASHAMED. I'M PROUD OF MYSELF. THANK YOU, SIR.

SENATOR SMITH: KNOWING YOU HAD GOOD, COMPETENT COUNSEL IN THE SENATOR OVER THERE, I FEEL MUCH BETTER.

MR. HEATH: I WANT TO SAY TO YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT I APPRECIATE YOU GIVING ME THE TIME TO COME BEFORE YOU AND IF YOU DOUBT MY VERACITY, IT'S LEFT TO YOU. HE IS A VERY CONVINCING MAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SENATOR SMITH: MR. BRYANT.

MR. BRYANT: I DON'T WANT TO TAKE BUT ONE MINUTE, AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS AN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING AND I AM NOT HERE TO TRY TO PROVE ANY CASE OR SEE WHO CAN WIN THIS THING. I TOLD YOU BEFORE, IT'S EXTREMELY DISTASTEFUL FOR ME TO BE HERE AND WOULDN'T DO IT AGAIN FOR A MILLION DOLLARS. THIS THING HAS BEEN GOING NOW FOR--THAT HEARING WAS HELD TWO YEARS AGO AND MR. KELLY HAS BEEN IN IT FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THIS BRIEFLY TO YOUR ATTENTION, AND I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS BECAUSE, AGAIN, I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE ANYTHING. I AM SORRY THAT JUDGE PEEPLES THINKS THAT MY ALLEGATIONS ARE SCURRILOUS OR MALICIOUS. I ASSURE YOU, JUDGE PEEPLES, THEY ARE NOT. I AM SORRY THAT HE CHOSE TO SAY THAT MAYBE I WAS HERE SEEKING SOME VENGEANCE BECAUSE HE HAD PUT SOME CLIENTS OF MY FIRM IN JAIL. I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT WAS AN INAPPROPRIATE REMARK FOR JUDGE PEEPLES TO MAKE. HE KNOWS BETTER THAN THAT. TO MY KNOWLEDGE I HAVE HAD REASONABLY GOOD SUCCESS BEFORE HIM.

JUDGE PEEPLES IS NOT A MAN WITHOUT SOME ABILITY. HE HAS SOME GOD-GIVEN TALENT TO BE A LAWYER AND A CIRCUIT JUDGE, AND HE HAS DEALT WITH ME FOR THE MOST PART, WHERE I HAVE APPEARED BEFORE HIM AS A LAWYER AND HE AS A JUDGE, FAIRLY WITH SOME DEGREE OF ARROGANCE AS YOU MIGHT NOTICE, BUT HE HAS BEEN A FAIR JUDGE AND HE IS REASONABLY WELL VERSED IN THE LAW, AND I THINK HE KNOWS THAT I WOULD NOT APPEAR HERE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.

SOMETHING HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT THE BASIS FOR HIS ACTIONS AND HIS REGARD FOR THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. I WOULD SAY TO YOU THAT THAT SAME REGARD THAT HE HAD FOR MRS. KNIGHT DID NOT EXTEND TO THE TIME WHEN HE APPROACHED MR. BARNWELL, MR. KELLY AND MR. KNIGHT'S LAWYER, WHO DREW THIS AGREEMENT TO DISCUSS THE MATTER WITH HIM, NOR WHEN HE TALKED WITH MR. BERRY ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. KNIGHT. HE HAD MR. KELLY'S PERMISSION TO TALK TO HIM. HE DID NOT HAVE MR. KNIGHT'S. MR. KNIGHT WAS DEAD, AND, YET, THEY DISCUSSED THAT OLD WILL. I AM THROWING THAT AT YOU. I AM NOT TRYING TO CREATE ANYTHING FOR US TO ARGUE ALL AFTERNOON ABOUT.

SENATOR MCCONNELL, I BELIEVE YOU ASKED ABOUT WHAT BERRY HAD TOLD HIM, AND BERRY TESTIFIED PRETTY MUCH THAT THERE WAS NEVER A TRANSFER OF THIS PROPERTY, THIS EQUIPMENT, THIS LAUNDROMAT EQUIPMENT, THAT KNIGHT CONTINUED TO DEPRECIATE IT, THAT HE CONTINUED TO SHOW RENTAL INCOME, THAT KELLY CONTINUED TO SHOW RENTAL EXPENSE. HE TESTIFIED TO THAT. IN THE AREA OF PAGE 60 TO 65 OF THE TRANSCRIPT, JUDGE PEEPLES' FIRST STATEMENT WHEN THEY ASKED HIM ABOUT WHAT MR. BERRY TOLD HIM, JUDGE PEEPLES SAID "HE TOLD ME BACK THEN ABOUT WHAT HE TESTIFIED TO TODAY," SO HE HAD A PRETTY GOOD FOUNDATION TO INDICATE THAT THAT AGREEMENT HAD NEVER BEEN CARRIED OUT, BUT, AS I SAY, JUDGE PEEPLES HAS MADE AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION ON HIS OWN BEHALF HERE TODAY, AND GOODNESS KNOWS I WISH IT HAD NOT BEEN NECESSARY FOR US TO HAVE THIS THING. HE IS WRONG TO SAY THAT THAT MATTER HAS BEEN BEFORE SEVERAL TRIBUNALS BEFORE. HIS QUALIFICATIONS ARE UP TODAY FOR THE FIRST TIME. THE SUPREME COURT DIDN'T HAVE THAT BEFORE THEM. JUDGE COTTINGHAM DIDN'T HAVE THAT BEFORE HIM, EITHER IN ORAL ARGUMENT, A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. JUDGE PEEPLES' QUALIFICATIONS HAVE NEVER BEEN BEFORE ANYBODY UNTIL TODAY, AND THIS IS THE ONLY TIME.

I HAVE NEVER REGARDED MYSELF AS A VERY GOOD LAWYER. I AM NOT A VERY GOOD STUDENT. I CAN'T FIND THE SOUTHEASTERN REPORTER, MUCH LESS A CASE IN IT. IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO DO THAT. I AM NOT A VERY GOOD TRIAL LAWYER, BUT I DO HAVE SOME PRIDE--

SENATOR SMITH: YOU ARE EXTREMELY MODEST.

A     I DO HAVE SOME PRIDE, MR. CHAIRMAN, IN MY GRASP OF THE TRUTH AND THE CHARACTER OF THE LAW TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT, AND I KNOW THAT I HAVE DONE WHAT IS RIGHT IN BRINGING THESE MATTERS TO YOUR ATTENTION; I COULD HAVE DONE NOTHING ELSE. I WISH I DIDN'T HAVE TO COME UP HERE. I DESPISE THIS AND I WILL REMEMBER THIS DAY AS LONG AS I LIVE. RODNEY PEEPLES WILL REMEMBER IT BECAUSE I CAUSED IT FOR HIM, AND I REGRET THAT VERY MUCH, BUT I HAD TO APPEAR HERE TODAY, AND I HAVE PRESENTED TO YOU WHAT I THINK ARE SOME VERY, VERY SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS, SOME FAR MORE SERIOUS THAN OTHERS, AND IT WAS VERY DISAPPOINTING FOR ME TO HEAR JUDGE PEEPLES DENY COMPLETELY EVERY ALLEGATION I BROUGHT TO YOU, NOT ONE OUNCE OF CONTRITION FROM JUDGE PEEPLES' MOUTH, NOT ONE.

I THOUGHT MAYBE, AS I WAS THINKING WHAT IS HE GOING TO SAY, HOW IS HE GOING TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION WHEN I ASK HIM "DID YOU HAVE ANY INTEREST," WHAT IS HE GOING TO SAY WHEN THAT COMMITTEE QUESTIONS HIM ABOUT THAT," I THOUGHT TO MYSELF HE IS GOING TO SAY THAT WAS A STUPID ANSWER, I SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID THAT, I SHOULD HAVE TOLD THEM. IT WAS STUPID OF ME TO DRAW THAT WILL. IT WAS RIDICULOUS TO ACT AS EXECUTOR. I SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT AND I AM SORRY I DID IT, I MADE A FOOL OF MYSELF, BUT HE DIDN'T DO THAT. SO YOU HAVE IT BEFORE YOU NOW. HE AND I HAVE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSING VIEWS ABOUT HIS CONDUCT IN THE CASE. THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. I HAVE DISCHARGED THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT I THINK I HAVE TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE, TO THE BAR IN THIS STATE AND TO MYSELF, AND AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED THE MATTER IS OVER. I HAVE NO FURTHER INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF IT. I HAVE DONE WHAT I HOPE TO BE MY DUTY AND IT MAY BE THAT I NOW PASS THIS RESPONSIBILITY OVER TO YOU. I HOPE IT NEVER FALLS MY LOT TO BE IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS AGAIN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SENATOR SMITH: SENATOR MCCONNELL HAS ONE OTHER QUESTION FOR YOU.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     I NEED TO KNOW ONE OTHER THING. SINCE MR. BERRY WROTE BOTH WILLS, DID MR. BERRY GIVE ANY EXPLANATION FOR THAT LATER WILL CONTAINING THAT PARAGRAPH IN IT REGARDING THE SALE OF THE EQUIPMENT?

A     MR. BERRY IN PRIVATE CAVE TO ME THE EXPLANATION THAT WHEN MR. KNIGHT CAME BACK UP THERE, MRS. KNIGHT WAS IN THE NURSING HOME AND COULDN'T BE THE EXECUTRIX. CHARLIE BROWN WAS DEAD AND HAD ALREADY BEEN BURIED AT MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY IN ORANGEBURG RIGHT NEXT TO WHERE WILKES KNIGHT WAS LATER BURIED, AND HE WANTED THOSE TWO THINGS TAKEN OUT AND HE ALSO WANTED TO NAME HIS STEPSON, WILL, AS THE EXECUTOR, AND THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME OTHER SLIGHT MODIFICATION. BERRY TELLS ME HE HANDED IT TO HIS SECRETARY AND SAID "RETYPE THIS WILL BUT MAKE THESE CHANGES," AND AS A RESULT, THE PROVISION FROM THE '73 WILL GOT RETYPED.

SENATOR SMITH: WE HAVE THAT TRANSCRIPT.

A     HE WAS NOT SO CLEAR WHEN HE TESTIFIED IN COURT ABOUT THAT FACET OF IT.

SENATOR SMITH: WILL YOU AGREE THAT CHARLIE BROWN WAS A NICE DOG?

A     NO, SIR. I NEVER MET CHARLIE BROWN. I KNOW THE LOVE AND AFFECTION THAT A MAN CAN HAVE FOR A DOG AND I CAN CERTAINLY SYMPATHIZE WITH THAT.

SENATOR LOURIE: MR. BRYANT, DO I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU SORT OF STIPULATED WITH JUDGE GREGORY THAT IT WOULD HAVE MADE NO DIFFERENCE--IT WOULD NOT HAVE MADE ANY DIFFERENCE IN YOUR MOTION IF A NEW TRIAL WAS GRANTED?

A     I DID. I WAS A LITTLE EMBARRASSED BECAUSE THERE ARE APPARENTLY, SENATOR LOURIE, SOME RULES ABOUT NEW TRIALS AFTER VERDICT, AFTER JUDGMENT, ABOUT WHICH I DID NOT KNOW, AND WHEN WE OPENED THAT ARGUMENT, BEFORE I EVER SAID "MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT," JUSTICE GREGORY SAID "MR. BRYANT, THERE ARE FOUR GROUNDS FOR GRANTING A NEW TRIAL WHEN A MATTER IS BEFORE THIS COURT," AND HE LISTED THEM. HE SAID "YOU DON'T COME UNDER ANY OF THOSE, DO YOU?" I SAID "I SURE DON'T, YOUR HONOR." WHEN HE SAID THAT I WAS IN THE WRONG FORUM, HE SAID THAT SHOULD HAVE MOVED THE SUPREME COURT TO REMAND IT TO THE LOWER COURT FOR THAT PURPOSE, AND THAT IS WHY I WAS IN THE WRONG FORUM, BUT THEN HE ASKED ME "IF WE REMAND IT AND YOU ARE ALLOWED TO INTRODUCE THIS EVIDENCE, DO YOU THINK IT WILL MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE," AND THAT IS THE FIRST TIME I CONSIDERED THAT, AND I FRANKLY TOLD HIM TRUTHFULLY I DID NOT.

SENATOR SMITH: LET ME ALSO SAY FOR THE RECORD THAT I NEGLECTED TO MENTION EARLIER THAT WE LAST SCREENED JUDGE PEEPLES ON FEBRUARY 27, '86 WHICH OF COURSE WAS BEFORE THIS HEARING BUT AFTER MR. HEATH'S COMPLAINT--I THINK THE RECORD OUGHT TO SHOW THAT--AND NO ONE CAME FORWARD. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, MR. BRYANT, YOU WOULD LIKE FOR JUDGE PEEPLES TO REMAIN ON THE CIRCUIT BENCH AND TRY THE NEXT TERM OF COMMON PLEAS COURT IN ORANGEBURG? (LAUGHTER.)

A     IF YOU WANT TO ADD SOME LEVITY TO THIS PROCEEDING, I WOULD SAY THAT I HAVE HAD EXCELLENT SUCCESS BEFORE JUDGE PEEPLES IN CIVIL MATTERS WHERE HE WAS THE JUDGE. HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN FAIR AND STRAIGHTFORWARD, AND IF I HAD A LOSING CASE, QUITE OFTEN HE WOULD HELP ME SETTLE IT.

SENATOR SMITH: I WANT TO SAY THAT NOT TO DETRACT FROM THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS, BUT I KNOW BOTH OF YOU GENTLEMEN TO BE REASONABLE AND HONORABLE PEOPLE. ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS JUDGE? (NO RESPONSE.) SPEAKING OF REASONABLE AND HONORABLE PEOPLE, REPRESENTATIVE JEAN TOAL HAS BEEN IN THIS ROOM SINCE BEFORE MOST OF US GOT HERE. IT IS THE QUIETEST AND STILLEST THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN THE LADY.

(JEAN H. TOAL, CANDIDATE FOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, WAS DULY SWORN BY SENATOR SMITH.)

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR SMITH:

Q     I KNOW IT'S EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO SIT THERE BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING HUMANS LOVE LIKE A GOOD STRUGGLE--

A     GIVEN THE SUBJECT MATTER, IT'S BEEN QUITE SATISFACTORY TO REMAIN SILENT, THANK YOU, SENATOR.

Q     MS. TOAL, LIKE THE OTHERS, YOU HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY I TRUST TO REVIEW OUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY WHICH IS SIMPLY AN ATTEMPT TO SAVE ON PRINTING COSTS, AND I WILL ASK YOU IS IT CORRECT INSOFAR AS YOU CAN TELL? WE HAD DIFFICULTY FRANKLY SHORTENING YOUR DESCRIPTION OF YOUR LEGAL EXPERIENCE IN THE VARIOUS CASES BECAUSE IT IS SO OUTSTANDING AND I DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE ANYTHING OUT. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT NEEDS CHANGING?

1.     Jean Hoefer Toal

Home Address:     Business Address:

2418 Wheat Street     P.O. Box 8057

Columbia, SC 29205     Columbia, SC 29202

2.     She was born in Columbia, South Carolina on August 11, 1943.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     She was married to William Thomas Toal on August 24, 1967. They have 2 children: Jean Hoefer, age 16 and Lilla Patrick, age 7.

6.     She attended Agnes Scott College, September, 1961 to June, 1965, B. A. Degree, Major/Philosophy; University of South Carolina Law School, September, 1965 to June, 1968, Juris Doctor.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:
Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion & Johnstone, Greenville, South Carolina, Associate, September, 1968 to August, 1970; Belser, Baker, Barwick, Ravenel, Toal & Bender, Associate, August, 1970 to December, 1973, Partner, January, 1974 to present

9.     Frequency of appearances in court for the past five years:

Federal - approximately 50 times

State - approximately 140 times
Other - administrative trials - approximately 100 times

10.     Percentage of litigation:

Civil: 80% Domestic: 23% Criminal: 2%

11.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury: 50%     Non-Jury: 50%

sole counsel/20%     chief counsel/60%

associate counsel/20%

12.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) Fox v. Scholer and Bruckner, United States District Court, District of South Carolina, C. A. No. 81-300-0
She was the sole counsel for Defendant Bruckner. A jury trial for two and one-half weeks resulted in a verdict for Defendants. There was a seven count complaint alleging medical malpractice, alienation of affections and criminal conversation, intentional infliction of emotional harm, conspiracy and fraud. There was considerable pretrial discovery and pretrial court appearances in the District Court of South Carolina and District Court of Ohio.

(b) Tall Tower, Inc. & S.C.E.T.V. v. South Carolina Procurement Panel and Charleston Television, Inc., Supreme Court Docket No. 87-253 (C.A. 86-CP-40-3152)
She was lead counsel, tried the case and wrote briefs. She argued the first case to the Supreme Court. The second case is pending before the Court of Appeals. These allied cases involve a dispute as to the procurement by South Carolina Educational Television. The Tall Tower case will be a significant new opinion in the separation of powers area.
(c) State v. Larry Portee, Fifth Judicial Circuit, General Sessions, 1980.
She was co-counsel. She assisted in all pre-trial action and the trial of the case. This was a death penalty case involving murder during the commission of an armed robbery. After two days of trial, the death penalty was abandoned and a plea to voluntary manslaughter was offered and accepted.

(d) United States v. Adams, et al., U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina, 1981, Judge Charles Simons presiding
This case involved two and one-half weeks of trial of four co-defendants accused of embezzlement of monies from Fort Jackson Post Exchange. She was sole counsel for Adams. Her Defendant and one other received jury verdicts of not guilty. The other two Defendants were convicted which was later overturned by the Fourth Circuit.

(e) Owen Martin v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK), U. S. District Court, District of South Carolina, C. A. No. 3:86-539-16
She was co-counsel and participated in all phases. She represented the Plaintiff. The case involved personal injury involving derailment of an Amtrak passenger train. The case took over a year of intensive discovery and numerous court appearances. The case was ultimately settled for an amount which is sealed until February, 1988, but which exceeded one million dollars.

13.     List up to five civil appeals which you personally have handled, giving the case, the court, the date of decision and citation, if reported.

(a) Lindsay v. National Old Line Insurance Co., 262 SC 621, 207 SE2d 75 (1974)
She wrote the brief and participated in the argument. This decision set forth rules for construction of the "Retaliatory Statute" which involves license fees and taxes paid by a foreign life insurance company and also set forth South Carolina's approach to retroactive legislation.

(b) Peterkin v. Peterkin, 360 SE2d 311 (S.C. 1987)
She was co-counsel at the trial and wrote the brief. She argued the case to the Supreme Court. This represented the latest treatment by our Supreme Court of the doctrine of transmutation.

(c) Eslinger v. Thomas, 324 F.Supp 1329 (D. S.C. _______)
She participated in the trial. The case established the right of women to serve as pages in the South Carolina Senate.

(d) Catawba Indian Tribe v. South Carolina, _______ U.S. ______ (1986), 740 F.2d 305 (4th Cir. 1984); 718 F.2d 1291 (4th Cir. 1983).
She participated in the trial, the writing of briefs for district court, Fourth Circuit, and U.S. Supreme Court. She presented the argument at the Fourth Circuit. This represented the third largest eastern Indian land claim. The case involves federal Indian Law, constitutional issues, and state property law. It is ongoing and back at the Fourth Circuit.

(e) Able v. S.C. P.S.C., 290 SC 409, 351 SE2d 151 (1986)
She wrote the brief and argued the case to the Supreme Court of South Carolina. This case represented the requirements of the South Carolina Administrative Procedure Act regarding the fact finding at the administrative level.

14.     If the position which you seek is on an Appellate Court, cite up to five (5) criminal appeals which you have handled.

(a) State v. Sachs, 264 SC 541, 216 SE2d 501 (1975).
She participated in the trial and wrote the appellate briefs and participated in the argument before the Supreme Court of South Carolina. This decision set forth a major restatement of the law of search and seizure in this state.

(b) State v. Hyman, 276 SC 559, 281 SE2d 209 (1981). State v. Linder, 276 SC 304, 278 SE2d 335 (1981).
These decisions set forth detailed rules with regard to the State's death penalty statute. She participated in the submission of an amicus curiae brief which discussed from a legislative perspective issues regarding proportionality in sentencing and other issues.

(c) Downey v. Peyton, 451 F.2d 236 (4th Cir. 1971)
This was a habeas corpus proceeding for a state prisoner in which a new trial was obtained where the jury had been improperly influenced by information which came to a Juror outside the trial of the case. This decision set forth guidelines for when the "jury room may be invaded" to determine whether the jury received extra trial information.

16.     Public Office: South Carolina House of Representatives, District 75, elected November, 1974 to present; South Carolina Commission on Human Affairs, 1972 to 1974, appointed by Governor

17.     Unsuccessful candidate: South Carolina Supreme Court, filed Fall, 1984, withdrew before election January 29, 1985

19.     Officer or Director: She is Director for American Executive Life Insurance Company

22.     Tax lien: She has paid penalties for late filing of income taxes and of withholding taxes on my housekeeper.

23. Sued:
(1) D. Edward Simon v. William T. Toal, Partner of Johnson, Toal & Battiste, Law Firm; Jean Toal, State Representative, A Backer/Supporter of CAVE; Grady A. Wallace, Commissioner, South Carolina Parole & Community Corrections, U.S. District Court, C.A. No. 86-924-3; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 86-6616
The Plaintiff was a state prisoner proceeding pro se who sought to file a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915 and 1983 against her husband, who was his lawyer for an unsuccessful application for parole, herself, as a legislative supporter of Citizens Against Violent Crime and the Commissioner of the Parole Board. The suit was dismissed as to William T. Toal and herself.

(2) She has been sued in her capacity as a state representative in suits involving reapportionment of the South Carolina Senate, South Carolina House of Representatives and United States Congress.

24.     Disciplined: She has had two (2) complaints lodged against her with the South Carolina Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. She does not have the complete paperwork for these complaints so the dates are approximate:

(1) A Defendant in a state court action which she brought on behalf of Charlene Brandt, a Columbia resident who was injured in an automobile accident, complained to the Board because she served him with a Complaint in this civil action. The suit was against his son whose address was the same as his. The Board dismissed the Complaint against her and the civil action proceeded, being ultimately resolved by settlement in her client's favor. This occurred in approximately 1980.

(2) (Name has been deleted due the fact that the record is sealed in this matter) In August of 1985 Mr. John Doe, his mother and his eight (8) brothers and sisters brought a complaint against her in connection with her representation of the family in a condemnation matter involving land in Fairfield County. She immediately contacted the Doe's family attorney Michael Kennedy, Esquire, of Shelby, North Carolina. They negotiated a settlement of the controversy which resulted in a complete release of all claims against her, a request of the Doe family to withdraw their grievance and a dismissal of the grievance by the Board of Commissioners.

25.     Her health is excellent.

26.     She was hospitalized November 24, 1980 for cesarean delivery of Lilla P. Toal. She returned to work January, 1981.

27.     She wears glasses. Her sight is corrected to 20-30. She also wears a hearing aid infrequently to enhance hearing because of nerve damage to the 8th cranial nerve as the result of ear infections.

32.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: St. Joseph's Catholic Church, Member of Parish Council and Lector; Shandon Neighborhood Council; Columbia Forum; Agnes Scott Alumnae Association.

33.     She does not know of any information which would reflect adversely on her. With regard to information of a positive nature, she believes she would bring to the Supreme Court considerable experience as a litigator in the State and Federal System. She has been privileged to appear on a frequent basis in all levels of the trial and appellate court systems in this state. She has also had considerable experience in federal district court, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and one appearance as co-counsel before the United States Supreme Court. Her experience includes a balance of Plaintiff's work, defense work and complex constitutional litigation. She has written many trial and appellate briefs at all court levels. She has also had considerable administrative law experience in litigation involving environmental matters, procurement and state bidding, hospital certificates of need and employment matters.
Her legislative experience over the past 13 years has involved floor leadership of complex legislation in the fields of constitutional law, utilities regulation, criminal law, structure of local government, budgetary matters, structure of the judicial system, banking and finance legislation, corporate law, tort claims, workers compensation, freedom of information act, environmental law, to cite major areas of interest. In many instances, she has had a primary role in drafting and floor leading legislation in these areas. She believes she brings a practical approach to scholarship which would be valuable to our court.

34.     Five letters of reference:

(a)     Joel Smith, President

NCNB of South Carolina

1301 Gervais Street, Columbia, SC

(b)     Francis P. Mood, Esquire

12th Floor, Palmetto Center, Columbia, SC

(c)     D. Cravens Ravenel, Esquire

P.O. Box 8057, Columbia, SC

(d)     Julius W. McKay, Esquire

SCN Building, Columbia, SC

(e)     Clinch Heyward Belser, Esquire

811 Albion Road, Columbia, SC 29206

Dear Senator Smith:

Re: Application for Consideration - S.C. Supreme Court

At the request of Mrs. Jean Toal, I am writing on her behalf and in support of consideration for her application for appointment to the S.C. Supreme Court.

I have known Mrs. Toal and her family for most of my life and know them to be very fine and upstanding members of this community. I have been associated with NCNB (formerly Bankers Trust of South Carolina) for over 16 years and have known Mrs. Toal as a valued customer of our bank in Columbia. She has always handled financial transactions in a most satisfactory and responsible manner and I would certainly assume this approach to doing business would be reflected in her other professional pursuits.

She is a person of high intellect and integrity and is certainly well qualified for this position. Please accept this as my recommendation that she be considered for nomination to the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Sincerely,
/s/ Joel A. Smith, III
President

Re: Jean H. Toal
Dear Senator Smith:

Jean Toal has been a law clerk, associate or partner in law firms of which I have been a member for more than two decades. She is a person of outstanding professional qualifications and of the highest integrity. I believe that in the almost 40 years in which I have practiced law I have never met a person who could absorb, analyze and organize into persuasive legal arguments more facts and law than could Jean Toal. Happily, she combines the capacity for vigorous advocacy where required with the judicial temperament where realistic judgments and evaluations are required. In my judgment, all of those capabilities are required, or at least useful, in serving as a member of the South Carolina Supreme Court.

In my opinion, Jean, if elected, would grace the Bench as she has the Bar. She is, to say the least, eminently qualified.

I regard it as a privilege to be able to supply this letter.

Sincerely,
/s/ C. Heyward Belser

Re: Jean Hoefer Toal
Dear Senator Smith:

This letter is written in behalf of Jean Hoefer Toal recommending her for the position of Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Mrs. Toal, born in Columbia in 1943, obtained her BA from Agnes Scott College in 1965 and her JD degree from the University of South Carolina in 1968. She began her practice in Greenville with the law firm of Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion and Johnstone where she immediately demonstrated superior legal talent. She returned to Columbia and is now a senior partner in the law firm of Belser, Baker, Barwick, Ravenel, Toal and Bender.

Jean is a leader in civic affairs having been elected outstanding young woman in America on three separate occasions, recipient of the Columbia Jaycees distinguished service award, elected to the House of Representatives in 1975 where she still serves with honor and distinction, been selected by the Greenville News as the outstanding legislator of the year and received the South Carolina Municipal Association DSA award. Over the years she has become a leader in the House of Representatives, sponsored and worked through the legislative process many important pieces of legislation. She is a capable, honest, and trustworthy legislator.

In her law practice Jean has been involved in many important trials representing a variety of clients, both on the plaintiff and defendant's side. To each of these cases she brought the highest standard of ethical and professional conduct, upholding the integrity and honor of the legal profession in every way. She applied her knowledge, experience and ability to the promotion of her client's causes without ever compromising ethical standards. Mrs. Toal has tried cases on every level of court in South Carolina including the United States District Court. She has handled appeals before the South Carolina Court of Appeals, the South Carolina Supreme Court as well as the United States Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court. In each of these forums, she has presented the court with arguments representing the highest quality of legal expertise. Her experience in these arenas would be of invaluable assistance to her as a Justice on the Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Mrs. Toal, a lawyer of unsullied reputation, maintains the highest ethical standards, has had vast experience in all areas of the law but maintains a balanced temperament which well suits her to be a Justice on the Supreme Court of South Carolina. She would grace the court with the dignity and honor which that Court commands and deserves.

Yours very truly,
/s/ Julius W. McKay

Re:     Associate Justice (Vacancy of Justice Gregory)

The Honorable Jean H. Toal
Dear Senator Smith:

My law partner, Jean H. Toal, is, as you know, a candidate for the vacancy on the South Carolina Supreme Court created by the election of Justice Gregory to the position of Chief Justice.

I have known Jean since law school and her family before that. As an active Republican I had the opportunity to see Jean as a member of the opposition. In addition, as a trial lawyer I have had the opportunity to see Jean both at administrative hearings and non-jury and jury matters in our trial Courts.

About five (5) years ago my firm merged with Jean's firm and since that time I have had the pleasure of working with her in administrative hearings, non-Jury and jury matters in the Federal and State Courts and in Appellate matters before the Courts of Appeal and the State and Federal judicial system. Given that background I am in a good position to give your Committee some insight into Jean H. Toal, the lawyer, the legislator and the person.

Jean's experience on the South Carolina Law Review coupled with her substantial writing skills have come together to produce a consummate appellate attorney. Her forceful writing and appellate advocacy are widely recognized by the South Carolina Bar and in the most sincere way possible, she is frequently associated by members of the Bar to prepare briefs and argue before the various Federal and State Courts of Appeal.

I have also had the opportunity to see Jean in the Courtroom and her skill in the examination of witnesses is unexcelled. I have seen her turn an entire case around on the strength of her cross-examination of hostile witnesses. She is clearly one of the most skillful advocates in the active practice today.

Of equal importance, Jean's advocacy is carried out within the framework of the Rules of Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Ethical considerations, not temporary expediency, govern her conduct as an attorney.

While it is always problematical to predict how donning the black robe will affect a person's attitude I have known Jean both as an adversary, as well as a law partner and she has, without failure, acted in a professional and courteous manner while presenting her client's position with force and clarity.

I have further observed that Jean has not taken advantage of her position as an attorney, or a legislator to demean, ridicule or take unfair advantage of any opponent. She fights to win, but she fights within the rules and without rancor or pettiness.

Although I do not know how she manages she has accomplished all this without sacrificing the really important things in her life, her family and her church. If I had to guess, it is this balance to her life that gives her the remarkable insights and judgment she brings to the practice of law.

Jean's children are a reflection of a life that not only is competitive and adversarial, but one in which expediency is abjured. It is impossible to see Jean and Bill with their children and not know that not only are these children taught what is right, but also that they, on a daily basis, see those lessons put into practice.

I was once told by an attorney for whom I have the greatest respect that a Judge's life must, of necessity, be a lonely one. I did not fully appreciate what he said until much later in my life. I think Jean would be "a lonely woman" in the sense that she would let the law lead her to a logical, reasoned opinion regardless of how the result might affect friend or foe.

South Carolina has the opportunity, not just to place a woman on the Court, but to have the benefit of the thoughtful, well reasoned opinions of one of the brightest minds available. I strongly recommend Jean H. Toal for your Committee's favorable consideration.

Yours truly,
/s/ D. Cravens Ravenel

Dear Senator Smith:

I am writing to commend to you the qualifications of Jean H. Toal to serve on the Supreme Court of South Carolina. I am sure that your file contains the essential biographical information on Mrs. Toal, her academic credentials, her leadership in the General Assembly and her service to the Bar. I will therefore limit my comments to first-hand observations of Mrs. Toal as a practicing lawyer.

During my years in the practice, I have had the opportunity to observe Jean Toal as a legal practitioner in a number of cases, in some of which our interests were compatible and in others, we have been adversaries. I have always been impressed with her knowledge of the law, her skills as a advocate, and her professional commitment to the representation of her clients.

In at least two cases, we dealt with issues of first impression in this state. One involved an early and, at that time, the most comprehensive interpretation of the State's Freedom of Information Act. Recently, we were involved in litigation lasting several years in which there were significant constitutional issues regarding the administrative review processes to be followed by a State agency. Unfortunately, in the latter, each of our clients withdrew their applications for certificates of need from DHEC before the case was heard by the S.C. Supreme Court. The case was, however, heard by the Honorable Walter Bristow at the first level of appellate review. In each of these cases I found Jean Toal to be well-grounded in the applicable constitutional law, perceptive in her analysis of the issues and skilled in articulating the arguments to be made. She displayed a keen awareness of the appellate process and the precision with which issues must be addressed on appeal.

Mrs. Toal's writing skills are superb. She makes her points with clarity and forcefulness. She is a creative lawyer, but creative in a judicious sense. By that, I mean, she possesses the appropriate sensitivity to judicial precedent while being acutely conscious of the evolving application of the law.

Finally, I believe Jean Toal possesses the temperament to be a first-rate appellate judge. She has the intellect and moral stamina to dispassionately address issues and to make decisions fairly and impartially.

In the course of your deliberations as a committee, you may hear it said that it is time for a female to serve on the highest court of our state. That may be true, and if it is, there is none more qualified than Jean Toal. However, this recommendation is not predicated on this partisan issue. Among all candidates, I believe you will find no one more qualified than she.

Respectfully,
/s/ Francis P. Mood

A     THERE ARE A COUPLE OF TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS THAT I WOULD ASK YOU TO MAKE, SENATOR. ON THE QUESTION NUMBER 9--BECAUSE I ASSUME THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO PRINT IN THE JOURNAL?

Q     YES.

A     IT SAYS "FREQUENCY OF APPEARANCES IN COURT," YOU MIGHT WANT TO ADD FOR ME AND FOR THE OTHER LAWYERS YOU SCREEN "FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS," BECAUSE OF COURSE WITH 19 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE THIS WOULDN'T BEGIN TO SET FORTH ALL THOSE, BUT I UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION TO GIVE A FREQUENCY OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS.

Q     FINE. I SEE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. THE QUESTIONNAIRE SAYS THAT BUT THE SUMMARY DOESN'T.

A     BUT THE SUMMARY DOESN'T, YES, SIR.

Q     WE WILL ADD THAT. WE WILL ADD THAT IN ALL CASES I MIGHT ADD.

A     ON PAGE NUMBER 2 OF THE SUMMARY AGAIN, IT'S NOT NUMBERED, BUT YOU WILL SEE ABOUT MIDWAY OF THE PAGE A SUMMARY OF THE STATE VERSUS AND IT SAYS LARRY PORTER, THAT SHOULD BE PORTEE. THAT LAST "R" SHOULD BE AN "E", AND MY HUSBAND, WHO IS HERE WITH ME TODAY AND WAS CO-COUNSEL, POINTS OUT THAT WE OUGHT TO MAKE IT CLEAR IN THAT CASE THAT THE DEATH PENALTY WAS ABANDONED RIGHT BEFORE WE BEGAN TO TRY THE CASE AND THEN THE PLEA WAS TAKEN TWO DAYS INTO TRIAL. IN FACT, JUDGE PEEPLES HEARD MOST OF THE PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS ON THAT CASE AND WAS VERY KIND TO BOTH OF US. I THINK I HAD ONE OTHER IF YOU WILL JUST BEAR WITH ME FOR A MINUTE. IT'S BEEN SO LONG SINCE I HAVE LOOKED AT THIS THING AND I HAVE KIND OF BEEN MESMERIZED AS YOU ALL HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS DAY.

Q     I WILL BE GLAD FOR YOU TO TAKE THE TIME TO FIND IT, OR IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LOOK, WE CAN CORRECT IT LATER.

A     ALL RIGHT, WHY DON'T I JUST DO THAT. I THINK I HAVE SOME OTHER NOTES AND IF I COULD SIMPLY GET WITH BARBARA, THEY ARE PURELY TYPOS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

Q     ANY OBJECTION TO THAT PROCEDURE?

A     NO OBJECTION.

Q     MS. TOAL, SO WITH THOSE PENDING TYPOGRAPHICAL CHANGES, IS THERE ANY OBJECTION IF WE INCLUDE THIS IN THE JOURNAL AS YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY AS IF YOU HAD TESTIFIED TO IT?

A     NO OBJECTION, SENATOR.

Q     WE HAVE YOUR LETTERS OF REFERENCE. OF COURSE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE SAYS THAT THEIR RECORDS REFLECT NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. NOW, YOU DISCLOSE, HOWEVER, TWO COMPLAINTS, AND I THINK I CAN CATEGORIZE THEM AS MINOR, ONE CHARLENE BRANDT BELIEVE AND THIS WAS--SOMEBODY GOT THE WRONG PAPERS?

A     YES. MRS. BRANDT WAS MY CLIENT AND I SUED THE DEFENDANT, WHOSE NAME FRANKLY I CAN'T RECALL NOW, AT THE PLACE THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT HAD HIM LISTED. IT TURNED OUT BOTH HE AND HIS FATHER WERE LISTED AT THAT RESIDENCE AND HIS FATHER RECEIVED THE PAPERS. HE WAS A RETIRED MILITARY PERSON FROM HILTON HEAD AND HE WAS QUITE DISAPPOINTED TO BE SERVED WITH PAPERS, SO HE COMPLAINED AGAINST ME AND IT WAS DISMISSED; AND, THE SECOND ONE, LET ME ASK YOU THIS, AND I HAD FORGOTTEN, THIS WAS THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION, THE RECORD IN THIS MATTER IS SEALED. IT DID RESULT IN A WITHDRAWAL OF ANY COMPLAINT BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO KEEP CONFIDENTIAL THE NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT. I DO SO AT HIS REQUEST.

Q     SO WITHOUT OBJECTION--THAT WOULD BE THERE THE MIDDLE OF THE LINE STARTING PARAGRAPH 2, THAT NAME THERE?

A     YES, SIR.

Q     IF EVERYBODY WOULD MARK THROUGH THAT. COURT REPORTER BE SO INSTRUCTED.

A     THAT WAS A MATTER IN WHICH I WAS ATTORNEY FOR A GENTLEMAN, HIS MOTHER AND EIGHT BROTHERS AND SISTERS AND I WAS THE SECOND ATTORNEY TO BECOME INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER AND A DISPUTE AROSE BETWEEN MYSELF AND THE VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY CONCERNING THE PROGRESS OF A CONDEMNATION CASE. AS SOON AS THE COMPLAINT WAS LODGED WITH THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, I CONTACTED THE PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE FAMILY WHO WAS HANDLING THIS AFFAIR FOR THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY, I CONTACTED HIM AND HIS ATTORNEY. WE MET. WE VERY QUICKLY RESOLVED THE DISPUTE AND THE FAMILY SIGNED A RELEASE WHICH WAS TENDERED TO ME AS WELL AS TO THE BAR GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE. THEY WITHDREW THEIR COMPLAINT. I INTERPRETED YOUR QUESTION, SENATOR, TO SAY IF YOU HAD EVER HAD ANYBODY COMPLAIN ABOUT YOU EVEN IF IT HAD BEEN DISMISSED. IT'S INTERESTING TO ME, I RECEIVED A COPY OF THE SAME LETTER YOU GOT FROM THE STATE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE AND IT SAYS NO COMPLAINT HAS EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST MRS. TOAL, I PRESUME IF THEY DISMISS THEM, THEY MUST TEAR THEM UP.

Q     THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS. IT'S A QUESTION OF SEMANTICS AND WE GET CAUGHT ON THAT PETARD EVERY NOW AND THEN. WE DO NOT INTEND TO. THAT IS SOMETHING I THINK WE ARE GOING TO WORK ON GETTING THAT WORD STRAIGHT.

SENATOR LOURIE: I THINK, MR. CHAIRMAN, WHEN THEY USE THE WORD "COMPLAINT," THEY MEAN THE COMMITTEE HAS FORMALLY FILED A COMPLAINT.

SENATOR SMITH: THAT'S CORRECT. IT MEANS THE COMMITTEE HAS FORMALLY FILED A COMPLAINT, AND WE USE IT IN THE SENSE OF SOMEONE COMPLAINING ABOUT YOU.

A     I ANSWERED IT THE WAY YOU WANTED ME TO.

Q     YOUR CREDIT REPORT IS SATISFACTORY. THE DRIVER'S RECORD IS CLEAR. THE RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WAS CONTACTED AND THEY ARE NEGATIVE ON YOU, MEANING THERE IS NOTHING THERE. THE COLUMBIA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN CONTACTED AND THEIR RECORDS ARE CHECKED, AND THAT IS NEGATIVE. THE CRIMINAL RECORDS SECTION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION WERE CHECKED AND THE RESULT WAS NEGATIVE. JUDGMENT ROLLS OF THE RICHLAND COUNTY CLERK OF COURT'S OFFICE SHOWS NO JUDGMENTS, AND THE F.B.I. CARD IS CLEAR. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST OF COURSE INDICATES NO PARTICULAR CONFLICTING ASSOCIATIONS. YOU DO INDICATE THAT ONE OF YOUR LAW PARTNERS IS AN OSHA JUDGE FOR THE OSHA REVIEW BOARD AND YOU DISCLOSE THAT, AND OTHER THAN YOUR LEGISLATIVE SALARY. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE? SOME OF YOU HAVE WAITED LONG AND HARD FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MS. TOAL UNDER OATH. I WOULD SAY YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN SCREENED BY THIS COMMITTEE IN--

A     IN 1984 I BELIEVE, SIR, OR EARLY '85.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     IT'S A PLEASURE AFTER SERVING ON THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE WITH REPRESENTATIVE TOAL ON THE OMNIBUS CRIME BILL TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS. I HAVE JUST ONE QUESTION. THE QUESTION I ASKED PREVIOUSLY, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE DEATH PENALTY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

A     YES, I DO. I BELIEVE IT TO BE ENTIRELY CONSTITUTIONAL AND, OF COURSE, YOU KNOW THAT, GLENN, AS DOES TOM, BECAUSE WE HAD A GOOD MANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IT WHEN WE REVISED IT TO SOME EXTENT IN THE OMNIBUS CRIME BILL. I BELIEVE IT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL AS WE INITIALLY ENACTED IT AND I BELIEVE OUR REVISIONS, AFTER SOME CONSIDERABLE ADVICE FROM A LOT OF QUARTERS, ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.

SENATOR SMITH: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MS. TOAL, I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY. I THINK IT WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T ASK THIS, HOW CAN SOMEONE JUMP FROM THE LEGISLATURE TO THE SUPREME COURT WITHOUT HAVING ANY PREVIOUS JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE?

A     I APPRECIATE YOU ASKING THAT, SENATOR, BECAUSE IT IS THE ISSUE I COVERED IN YOUR KIND OF CATCHALL QUESTION, QUESTION 33, WHERE YOU ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE THE CANDIDATE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS ABOUT HIS OR HER CANDIDACY. I BELIEVE I WOULD BRING, SENATOR SMITH, TO SERVICE ON THE HIGHEST APPELLATE COURT IN THIS STATE THE EXPERIENCE OF A LITIGATOR--

SENATOR SMITH: LET ME STOP YOU AND LET ME SAY TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, GENERALLY WE DON'T PUT THAT IN THE--IT'S NOT IN YOUR COPY IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY. WE HAVE IT ON THE ORIGINAL BUT IT'S NOT IN YOUR COPY.

A     I WILL ANSWER THE QUESTION BRIEFLY. COULD I ASK THAT ITEM 33 BE ALSO ADDED TO MY RESPONSE?

SENATOR SMITH: ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? IT'S A GOOD STATEMENT.

A     I HAD ANTICIPATED THAT QUESTION BEING ASKED AND WHAT I BASICALLY SAID THERE IS THIS: I BELIEVE I WOULD BRING TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT THE EXPERIENCE OF A LITIGATOR, AND A VERY ACTIVE LITIGATOR WITH 19 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, WITH A GREAT DEAL OF APPELLATE AS WELL AS TRIAL COURT EXPERIENCE WITH THE EXPERIENCE ON EVERY LEVEL OF COURT IN THIS STATE FROM THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT TO THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT TO THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF THIS STATE TO THE MASTER'S COURT TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT BENCH, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, OUR OWN COURT OF APPEALS, OUR STATE SUPREME COURT AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. I THINK THAT SORT OF PERSPECTIVE OF A LITIGATOR WHOSE PRACTICE HAS SPANNED THE LATE '60S TO THE LATE '80S WOULD BE A VERY VALUABLE ADDITION TO THE CONSIDERABLE BODY OF EXPERIENCE THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS ON OUR COURT. WITHOUT BEING TOO SELF-AGGRANDIZING, BUT IN AN ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ACCURATELY, I BELIEVE I WOULD ALSO BRING THE CONSIDERABLE EXPERIENCE OF SOMEONE WHO FOR THE PAST 13 YEARS HAS BEEN VERY ACTIVE IN CRAFTING MOST OF THE MAJOR CHANGES IN DIFFICULT LEGISLATION, PARTICULARLY THAT AS IT PERTAINS TO THE CONSTITUTION, AS PERTAINS TO OUR COURT SYSTEM, BUT ALSO AS IT PERTAINS TO SUCH DIVERSE SUBJECTS AS HOME RULE, THE CORPORATE CODE, THE CRIMINAL CODE AND THE LIKE. I BELIEVE I HAVE DONE MORE THAN SIMPLY VOTE ON THOSE MATTERS. I PARTICIPATED VERY ACTIVELY IN THE DRAFTING OF THOSE MATTERS, IN THE FLOOR LEADERSHIP OF THOSE MATTERS AND IN SOME CASES THE TESTING OF THEIR VALIDITY IN THE COURT SYSTEM. I THINK I WOULD BRING THAT TO THE APPELLATE EXPERIENCE.

I THINK FINALLY I WOULD BRING A PRACTICAL APPROACH AND AN EXPERIENCED APPROACH TO RESEARCH AND SCHOLARSHIP THAT I BELIEVE WOULD BE A VALUABLE ADDITION TO THE CONSIDERABLE SCHOLARSHIP THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN THE APPELLATE COURTS OF OUR STATE. I THINK I WOULD BE PREPARED TO DO THAT IN A FAIR WAY, IN AN IMPARTIAL WAY. I WAS VERY COMPLIMENTED, AS I AM SURE YOU WOULD IMAGINE, BY THE VERY KIND LETTERS THAT WERE SUBMITTED AS LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION ON MY BEHALF, WHICH I HOPE THE COMMITTEE WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO VIEW. I CAREFULLY PICKED THE INDIVIDUALS I ASKED TO WRITE THOSE LETTERS OF REFERENCE BECAUSE I WANTED INDIVIDUALS WHO KNEW ME BOTH AS A CO-PRACTITIONER AND AS AN ADVERSARY, AND I CONSCIOUSLY PICKED OUT INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE A CONSIDERABLE BODY OF EXPERIENCE IN THE AREAS I HAVE TALKED ABOUT. I TRIED TO BLEND ONE LEGISLATOR WITH THREE LITIGATORS, AND ALL FOUR OF THEM WITH A VAST AMOUNT OF EXPERIENCE FROM TOP TO BOTTOM.

ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT ONE OF MY REFERENCES, CRAVENS RAVENEL, ONE OF MY LAW PARTNERS, MADE WITH RESPECT TO THE ABILITY TO JUDGE THINGS FAIRLY, HE SAID HE ONLY REALIZED AFTER HE BEGAN TO BE IN PRACTICE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS THAT JUDGING WAS A LONELY PROFESSION, AND HE SAID HE THOUGHT I WOULD BE PREPARED TO BE THAT LONELY WOMAN IN THE SENSE THAT I WOULD BE PREPARED TO LOOK AT MATTERS IN A DISPASSIONATE WAY AND BE FAIR WITHOUT REGARD TO WHO MIGHT BE APPEARING BEFORE ME. I HOPE YOU ALL KNOW ME WELL ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD BE THE CASE.

SENATOR SMITH: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? (NO RESPONSE.) THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYTHING ELSE TO COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE IN OPEN SESSION? IF NOT, WITHOUT OBJECTION I WILL ORDER US INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION UNDER THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE.

(WHEREUPON, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED AT 4:30 P.M.)

The Judicial Screening Committee has investigated the qualifications of the following candidates and finds each to be qualified to seek election.

With regard to Judge Connor, two witnesses came forward to testify that she was not qualified. Mr. Cephas Jennings testified regarding his appearances before Judge Connor where among other thing he was found in contempt of court for nonpayment of child support. We find that there was ample authority for Judge Connor's decision.

Mr. Ray Hamm testified before the Committee in Executive Session regarding a case in which he was the attorney for one of the parties. His complaint centered around Judge Connor's decision in that case. Again, we find ample authority for Judge Connor's decision.

Accordingly, we find these allegations without merit and find Judge Connor qualified.

With regard to Judge Peeples, the Committee was equally divided and filed two reports which follows.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas E. Smith, Jr., Chairman

/s/ Sen. John A. Martin

/s/ Sen. Isadore E. Lourie

/s/ Sen. Glenn F. McConnell

/s/ Rep. James M. Arthur

/s/ Rep. Larry E. Gentry

/s/ Rep. D. Malloy McEachin, Jr.

/s/ Rep. John I. Rogers, III

At the Committee's public hearing, two witnesses appeared to offer testimony as to complaints they had filed with the Committee against Judge Peeples. Thomas B. Bryant, III, Attorney at Law, Orangeburg, South Carolina, alleged that Judge Peeples violated the following Disciplinary Rules or Ethical Considerations of the South Carolina Codes of Professional Responsibility and Judicial Conduct (S.C. Supreme Court Rules 32 and 33):

DR1-1-2(A)(4) "A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."

EC 5-5 "... other than in exceptional circumstances, a lawyer should insist that an instrument in which his client desires to name him beneficially be prepared by another lawyer selected by the client."

EC 5-6 "... a lawyer should not consciously influence a client to name him as executor, trustee, or lawyer in an instrument. In those cases where a client wishes to name his lawyer as such, care should be taken by the lawyer to avoid even the appearance of impropriety."

Judicial Conduct Canon 5(D): A judge should not serve as the executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary, except for the estate, trust, or person of a member of his family, and then only if such service will not interfere with the proper performance of his judicial duties. "Member of his family" includes a spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, or other relative or person whom the judge maintains a close familial relationship.

The Committee acknowledges and takes seriously its charge to "consider the qualifications of the candidates" for election to the Judiciary by the General Assembly. The Committee's investigation is a thorough one. Not only have we invited members of the public and the practicing bar to comment upon the qualifications of each of the candidates, the Committee has made its own extensive inquiry into the allegations and complaints made by those appearing before our Committee.

In reviewing the complaints made against Judge Peeples, we have weighed the testimony of Mr. Bryant concerning the actions of Judge Peeples. These allegations arise from an attorney/client relationship between then "attorney" Peeples and Mrs. Knight which began with his drafting of a will for Mrs. Knight in 1974. We are convinced by Judge Peeples' testimony that he has not violated any of the Canons of Ethics above referenced or otherwise called into question by Mr. Bryant. He has explained to our satisfaction his close personal relationship with Mrs. Knight. We are convinced that the relationship between Mrs. Knight and Judge Peeples was an exceptional one, grounded in Mrs. Knight's deep friendship with and trust in Judge Peeples.

We have weighed the testimony of both complainants and candidate so as to determine whether there has been a breach of ethics which would impugn the ability of a candidate to serve honorably and competently in the Judiciary. Taken alone, some interpretations of Mr. Bryant's testimony as to Judge Peeples' conduct might arguably warrant this Committee's questioning of his integrity and qualification to sit on the Supreme Court of South Carolina. We do not subscribe to these interpretations, but recognize everyone's right to his personal opinion.

In considering all of the foregoing, it is important to realize that Judge Peeples was screened in 1976, 1980 and 1986 and found qualified, without any appearances against him. Further, Judge Peeples has served as Chairman of the National Conference of State Trial Judges, has been elected as the only judicial member of the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association, is on the Board of Directors of the American Judicature Society, is one of six judges selected by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate to serve on the State Justice Institute Board of Directors. Judge Peeples is an able and respected trial judge with years of experience in every county of the State. This experience makes him qualified to serve on the South Carolina Supreme Court.

The second witness appearing against Judge Peeples was Charles H. Heath, Jr. We find that his contentions are not supported by the record. We do not find that Mr. Heath was treated improperly by Judge Peeples. Mr. Heath's main complaint was that he wanted an apology from Judge Peeples. Obtaining an apology is beyond the power of this Committee. The Board of Judicial Standards investigated the same complaint of Mr. Heath and on March 14, 1986, dismissed it.
/s/ Senator Thomas E. Smith, Jr.
/s/ Senator John A. Martin
/s/ Senator Isadore E. Lourie
/s/ Rep. James M. Arthur

Senator Glenn F. McConnell

Representative John I. Rogers, III

Representative D. Malloy McEachin, Jr.

Representative Larry E. Gentry

There were two witnesses who filed complaints concerning Judge Rodney A. Peeples. The undersigned members of the Screening Committee make the following findings and recommendations:

Thomas B. Bryant, III, Attorney at Law, Orangeburg, South Carolina made several allegations against Judge Peeples.

The basis facts arose as follows: On April 17, 1974, Judge Peeples, then a private attorney, drafted a Will for Pauline H. Knight. The Will left her estate to her husband for his lifetime and the remainder to the two daughters of Judge Peeples, and named Mr. Knight Executor; it provided that should he predecease her, Judge Peeples would serve as substitute Executor. Judge Peeples was elected Circuit Judge on February 13, 1974 and qualified on December 5, 1974.

Mr. Knight predeceased Mrs. Knight on August 22, 1983; his Will left his entire estate, except for some small bequests to Mrs. Knight. Mr. Knight appointed Mr. William W. Kelly, his stepson, as Executor of his estate.

Several days after Mr. Knight's death, Mr. Kelly, a resident of Washington, D.C., agreed to allow Judge Peeples and his wife to assume responsibility for Mrs. Knight. On August 31, 1983, Judge Peeples arranged for Mr. Elroy Dantzler, an Orangeburg bookkeeper and friend of Judge Peeples, to be given a power of attorney from Mrs. Knight. At that time, she was residing in an Orangeburg nursing home. After Mr. Knight's death, Judge and Mrs. Peeples moved Mrs. Knight to a Barnwell County nursing home in 1983.

After Mr. Knight's death, Judge Peeples contacted Mr. Kelly by telephone concerning an alleged purchase agreement between Mr, Kelly and Mr. Knight, demanding payment. Then on November 6, 1983, Judge Peeples wrote to Mr. Kelly on Judicial stationery, expressing his legal opinion that the debt was owed and demanded payment.

Mr. Kelly's position to Judge Peeples was that the 1972 agreement had been rescinded and the parties had engaged in a rental agreement which had subsequently terminated with assets being distributed. Mr. Andrew Berry, Mr. Knight's accountant, confirmed to Judge Peeples and others that Mr. Knight had rescinded the contract many years prior to hi.q death. The attorney in fact for Mrs. Knight, Mr. Dantzler, brought action in the Probate Court to have Mr. Kelly removed as Executor because Mr. Kelly was not going to sue himself to collect the money alleged by Mr. Dantzler and Judge Peeples to be owed Mr. Knight's estate. Mr. Kelly was removed as Executor. An appeal to the Supreme Court affirmed that decision.

In October, 1984, Mr. Kelly brought a declaratory judgment action in Orangeburg County to resolve whether or not there were any legal obligations by Mr. Kelly to pay money to Mr. Knight's estate. Mr. Dantzler, on behalf of Mrs. Knight, counterclaimed for the $300.00 monthly payment. He also sought collection of the accrued payments from 1978 until Mr. Knight's death in 1983. Based on affidavits executed by purported witnesses of whom Judge Peeples was the only one to eventually testify, the case was transferred to Barnwell County. It came to trial December 4, 1985. Judge Peeples was called to testify and, during the course of his testimony, the following colloquy took place between Judge Peeples and Mr. Bryant:
Q.     Judge Peeples, do you have any interest in this matter other than the fact that you are friends with Mrs. Pauline Knight?
A.     No sir, just trying to help this lady who doesn't have any kin folks other than third or fourth cousins.
Q.     All right, sir. Have you ever prepared a Will for Mrs. Knight?
A.     Yes, I have. I've prepared probably five Wills, I'd say, in the ten years that I represented her.
Q.     And do you have presently a Will that you prepared for her?
A.     No sir, I don't have it.
Q.     Do you know where it is?
A.     Yes sir, I know where it is.
Q.     And do you know what it contains?
A.     Yes sir.

The trial judge found the purchase agreement to be in force. Mrs. Knight died on June 11, 1986. After appeal of the trial judge's decision, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court finding as follows:
"We find, even without appellant's (William W. Kelly) testimony, the preponderance of the evidence indicates the 1972 agreement was rescinded. The stepfather's (Mr. Knight) tax returns and testimony of the accountant who prepared them overwhelmingly support this conclusion."

Subsequent to the Supreme Court's decision, Mr. Kelly was reinstated as Executor of Mr. Knight's estate. Judge Peeples continues to serve as Executor of Mrs. Knight's estate. The value of Mrs. Knight's estate, including what she inherited from Mr. Knight, would be approximately $150,000.00 which, had the suit against Mr. Kelly been successful, would have been increased by approximately $35,000.00

At the time of Mrs. Knight's death, one of Judge Peeples' daughters was 16 years of age and the other over age 18.

The undersigned members of the Screening Committee are mindful of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' sentiment that of all the secular professions, the legal profession should have the highest standards. We are mindful of the practical realities of being a judge, as opposed to unrealistic ideals, however, there are certain fundamentals of right and wrong that judges must meet.

Judge Peeples wrote a Will for Mrs. Pauline Knight, naming his two daughters as remaindermen and himself as contingent Executor. We are of the opinion that this violates the Code of Professional Ethics for Attorneys.

Judge Peeples took an active role in the marshalling of the assets of Mr. Knight's estate, including the writing of a letter on Judicial stationery, expressing a legal opinion that a debt was owed and demanding payment. Had the alleged debt been collected, Judge Peeples' daughters would have benefitted. We are of the opinion this violates the Code of Judicial Ethics.

Judge Peeples took over the affairs of Mrs. Pauline Knight and exceeded the bounds of propriety for the involvement of a judge in civil affairs.

However, the gravest deficiency occurred when Judge Peeples testified in the case of Kelly v. Knight. The testimony of Judge Peeples was in our opinion not the truth. Judge Peeples did not provide sufficient explanation to justify his failure in court to disclose his interest to this Committee.

Judge Peeples had no reason to testify and should have distanced himself from the entire matter. His participation in the trial needlessly exposed his position as a judge to an adversary proceeding.

Finally, Judge Peeples continues to serve as Executor of the Estate of Pauline Knight. We are of the opinion that this is contrary to the provision of Canon 5 (D) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

From the totality of the circumstances, we are compelled to find that Judge Peeples is not qualified to serve on our State's highest court.

/s/ Senator Glenn F. McConnell
/s/ Rep. John I. Rogers, III
/s/ Rep. D. Malloy McEachin, Jr.
/s/ Rep. Larry E. Gentry

(NOTE: During the hearing certain exhibits were presented by Judge Peeples. These exhibits are available at the Clerk's Desk.)
/s/ Senator Thomas E. Smith, Jr.

Received as information.

(On motion of Rep. McEACHIN, the report was ordered printed in the Journal.)

The following was received.

October 1, 1987
The Honorable James W. Johnson Jr.
Member of the South Carolina

House of Representatives
Box 724
Clinton S.C. 29325

Dear Jim:
It is with pleasure that I am today appointing you to serve on the Ways and Means Committee. I am confident that you will be an asset to the committee and deeply appreciate your interest in serving in this capacity.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

Received as information.

The following were received.

September 28, 1987
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina

House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, S.C. 29211
Dear Mrs. Shealy:

Pursuant to Act 176 of 1977, I have received on September 25, 1987 regulations concerning Restricting the use of Watercraft in the Waters in a Certain Portion in Lake Marion Around the I-95 and 301 Bridges in Clarendon and Orangeburg Counties, S.C. from the S.C. Wildlife & Marine Resources Department.

They are hereby referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources for consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

September 28, 1987
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina

House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Mrs. Shealy:

Pursuant to Act 176 of 1977, I have received on September 24, 1987 regulations concerning Scope of Powers Granted to Tier B Land Surveyors from the S.C. State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors.

They are hereby referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry for consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

October 15, 1987
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina

House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Mrs. Shealy:

Pursuant to Act 176 of' 1977, I have received on October 14, 1987 regulations concerning Interscholastic Activities: Academic Requirements for Participation from the Department of Education.

They are hereby referred to the Committee on Education and Public Works for consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

November 3, 1987
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina

House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Mrs. Shealy:

Pursuant to Act 176 of 1977, I have received on November 3, 1987 regulations concerning Variable Contracts from the Department of Insurance.

They are hereby referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry for consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

November 3, 1987
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina

House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Mrs. Shealy:

Pursuant to Act 176 of 1977, I have received on November 3, 1987 regulations concerning Parking and Traffic from Clemson University.

They are hereby referred to the Committee on Education and Public Works for consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

November 3, 1987
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina

House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Mrs. Shealy:

Pursuant to Act 176 of 1977, I have received on November 3, 1987 regulations concerning Agents and Agency Licenses from the Department of Insurance.

They are hereby referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry for consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

December 2, 1987
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina

House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Mrs. Shealy:

Pursuant to Act 176 of 1977, I have received on December 2, 1987 regulations concerning Vehicle Inspection from the Department of Highways and Public Transportation.

They are hereby referred to the Committee on Education and Public Works for consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

December 15, 1987
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina

House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Mrs. Shealy:

Pursuant to Act 176 of 1977, I have received on December 15, 1987 regulations concerning Requirements for Teacher Education and Certification from the Department of Education.

They are hereby referred to the Committee on Education and Public Works for consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

December 15, 1987
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina

House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Mrs. Shealy:

Pursuant to Act 176 of 1977, I have received on December 14, 1987 regulations concerning Licensing Fees and composition of Board from the Licensing Board for Contractors.

They are hereby referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry for consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

December 29, 1987
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina

House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Mrs. Shealy:

Pursuant to Act 176 of 1977, I have received on December 29, 1987 regulations concerning Renewal of Licenses and Advertising from the Board of Examiners in Psychology.

They are hereby referred to the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs for consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

January 4, 1988
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina

House of Representatives

Dear Mrs. Shealy:

Pursuant to Act 176 of 1977, I have received on January 4, 1988 regulations concerning Establishment of Rates for the South Carolina Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association from the Department of Insurance.

They are hereby referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry for consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

January 4, 1988
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina

House of Representatives

Dear Mrs. Shealy:

Pursuant to Act 176 of 1977, I have received on January 4, 1988 regulations concerning Filing of Malpractice Insurance Claims with the Chief Insurance Commissioner from the Department of Insurance.

They are hereby referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry for consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

January 4, 1988
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina

House of Representatives

Dear Mrs. Shealy:

Pursuant to Act 176 of 1977, I have received on January 4, 1988 regulations concerning Board of Directors of the South Carolina Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association from the Department of Insurance.

They are hereby referred to the Committee on Labor Commerce and Industry for consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

January 5, 1988
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina

House of Representatives

Dear Mrs. Shealy:

Pursuant to Act 176 of 1977, I have received on January 5, 1988 regulations concerning Medicaid Eligibility from the State Health and Human Services Finance Commission.

They are hereby referred to the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs for consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

January 11, 1988
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina

House of Representatives

Dear Mrs. Shealy:

Pursuant to Act 176 of 1977, I have received on January 4, 1988 regulations concerning Filing of Claims from the Department of Insurance.

They are hereby referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry for consideration.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

Received as information.

The following was received.

December 2, 1987
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina

House of Representatives

Dear Mrs. Shealy:

The South Carolina Board of Pharmacy is hereby withdrawing Regulation Document Number 843 from the Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee, effective December 1, 1987.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

Received as information.

RULES AND REGULATIONS WITHDRAWN AND RESUBMITTED

The following was received.

December 15, 1987
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina

House of Representatives

Dear Mrs. Shealy:

The State of South Carolina Public Service Commission is hereby simultaneously withdrawing and resubmitting regulations with changes pertaining to Common and Motor Carriers, effective December 14, 1987.

These regulations have been referred to the Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

Received as information.

The following was received.

Honorable John T. Campbell
Secretary of State
Wade Hampton Office Building
Columbia, S.C. 29201

Dear Mr. Secretary:

The State Board of Canvassers hereby certifies that Mr. J. Derham Cole was elected to the office of South Carolina House of Representatives, District 32, at the election held in Spartanburg County on September 1, 1987.

Sincerely,
C. Tyrone Gilmore, Chairman
Dr. Neal D. Thigpen
C.D. Sexton
STATE BOARD OF CANVASSERS

Dated this 8th day of September, 1987.

Received as information.

The following was received.

September 9, 1987
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina

House of Representatives

Dear Mrs. Shealy:

Under date of September 8, 1987, the State Election Commission certified to this office the results of the election in House District No. 32, held in Spartanburg County on September 1, 1987. The certification shows that J. Derham Cole has been elected to the S.C. House of Representatives, District 32.

I, therefore, certify that J. Derham Cole has been duly elected as a member of the S.C. House of Representatives from District 32, Spartanburg County, for a term as prescribed by law.

Yours very truly,
John T. Campbell
Secretary of State

Received as information.

The following was received.

November 3, 1987
Honorable John T. Campbell
Secretary of State
Wade Hampton Office Building
Columbia, S.C. 29202

Dear Mr. Secretary:

The State Board of Canvassers hereby certifies that Mr. Steve Lanford was elected to the office of South Carolina State House of Representatives, District 35, at the special election held in Spartanburg County October 27, 1987.

Sincerely,
C. Tyrone Gilmore
Sylvia Schwartz
C.D. Sexton
STATE BOARD OF CANVASSERS

Received as information.

The following was received.

November 4, 1987
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina
House of Representatives

Dear Mrs. Shealy:

Under date of November 3, 1987, the State Election Commission certified to this office the results of the election in House District No. 35, held in Spartanburg County on October 27, 1987. The certification shows that Steve Lanford has been elected to the S.C. House of Representatives, District 35.

I, therefore, certify that Steve Lanford has been duly elected as a member of the S.C. House of Representatives from District 35, Spartanburg County, for a term as prescribed by law.

Yours very truly,
John T. Campbell
Secretary of State

Received as information.

The following was received.

January 12, 1988
Honorable John T. Campbell
Secretary of State
Wade Hampton Office Building
Columbia, S.C. 29202

Dear Mr. Secretary:

The State Board of Canvassers hereby certifies that Mr. Paul M. Burch was elected to the office of South Carolina State House of Representatives, District 51, at the special election held in Chesterfield, Kershaw, Lancaster Counties on January 5, 1988.

Sincerely,
C. Tyrone Gilmore, Chairman
Margaret Townsend
Dr. Neal D. Thigpen
C.D. Sexton

Received as information.

The following was received.

January 12, 1988
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina
House of Representatives

Dear Mrs. Shealy:

Under date of January 12, 1988, the State Election Commission certified to this office the results of the election in House District No. 51, held in Chesterfield, Kershaw, and Lancaster Counties on January 5, 1988. The certification shows that Paul M. Burch has been elected to the S.C. House of Representatives, District 51.

I, therefore, certify that Paul M. Burch has been duly elected as a member of the S.C. House of Representatives from District 51, Chesterfield, Kershaw, and Lancaster Counties, for a term as prescribed by law.

Yours very truly,
John T. Campbell
Secretary of State

Received as information.

The following was received.

January 12, 1988
Honorable John T. Campbell
Secretary of State
Wade Hampton Office Building
Columbia, S.C. 29202

Dear Mr. Secretary:

The State Board of Canvassers hereby certifies that Mr. Alva Humphries was elected to the office of South Carolina State House of Representatives, District 71, at the special election held in Richland County January 5, 1988.

Sincerely,
C. Tyrone Gilmore, Chairman
Margaret Townsend
Dr. Neal D. Thigpen
C.D. Sexton
STATE BOARD OF CANVASSERS

Received as information.

The following was received.

January 12, 1988
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina

House of Representatives

Dear Mrs. Shealy:

Under date of January 12, 1988, the State Election Commission certified to this office the results of the election in House District No. 71, held in Richland County on January 5, 1988. The certification shows that Alva Humphries has been elected to the S.C. House of Representatives, District 71.

I, therefore, certify that Alva Humphries has been duly elected as a member of the S.C. House of Representatives from District 71, Richland County, for a term as prescribed by law.

Yours very truly,
John T. Campbell
Secretary of State

Received as information.

Mr. J. Derham Cole, Member-elect from District No. 32, Spartanburg County, Mr. Stephen P. Lanford, Sr., Member-elect from District No. 35, Spartanburg County, Mr. Paul M. Burch, Member-elect from District No. 51, Kershaw, Chesterfield and Lancaster Counties, and Mr. Alva Humphries, Member-elect from District No. 71, Richland County, presented their credentials and the oath of office was administered to them by the SPEAKER.

Rep. WASHINGTON made a statement relative to Legislative Aides.

The following invitations were taken up for immediate consideration and accepted.

April 15, 1987
The Honorable Samuel R. Foster
Chairman
House Invitations Committee
532B Blatt Building
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Sam:

The South Carolina Bankers Association would like to invite the members of the South Carolina State House of Representatives and their spouse/guest to our annual reception to be held at The Town House, 1615 Gervais Street, on the opening day of the legislative session, Tuesday, January 12, 1988, from 6:00-8:00 P.M.

I would appreciate the acceptance of this invitation by your committee, and we look forward to having all of you join us on that evening.

Sincerely,
Lloyd I. Hendricks
Executive Vice President

December 7, 1987
The Honorable Samuel R. Foster
P.O. Box 11867
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Representative Foster:

The office of W. Powers McElveen & Associates, Inc. would like to cordially invite the General Assembly of the South Carolina Senate and House of Representatives to a "Welcome Back" party at the Radisson Hotel, Wednesday, January 13, 1988 from 6:30 to 9:00 P.M.

I look forward to hearing from you concerning your response.

Sincerely,
William C. Smith, Jr.

November 17, 1987
Ms. Catherine G. Jeter
Invitations and Memorial Resolutions Committee
P.O. Box 11867
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Ms. Jeter:

The House Reservations Committee has reserved Tuesday, January 19, 1988 for a legislative reception at the Radisson Hotel and Wednesday, January 20, 1988 for the Governor's Conference on Education Legislative Luncheon to be held at the Cantey Building. Both events are sponsored by the South Carolina School Boards Association.

This letter serves as our formal letter of invitation concerning the above events. The January 19 reception at the Radisson will begin at 7:00 P.M. and end at 9:00 P.M. The January 20 Governor's Conference Luncheon at the Cantey Building will begin at 12:30 P.M.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Cordially,
Jeannie M. Henry
Director of Board Development

September 24, 1987
Representative Sam Foster
Invitations Committee
518 Blatt Building
Columbia, S.C. 29221

Dear Representative Foster:

The Executive Board of Palmetto State Teachers Association invites the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives to a buffet breakfast on Wednesday, January 20 from 8:00-9:00 A.M. at the Radisson.

We look forward to seeing you.

Sincerely,
Lynn Breedin
President

October 21, 1987
The Honorable Sam Foster, Chairman
House Invitations Committee
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, S.C. 29202

Dear Representative Foster:

The South Carolina Education Association cordially invites members of the House of Representatives to attend a reception honoring the General Assembly on Wednesday evening, January 20, 1988 from 8:00-9:30 P.M. The event will be held at the Radisson Hotel, Assembly Street, Columbia.

Members of our association look forward to greeting you and the other members of the House and sharing the pleasure of your company.

Sincerely,
Terry M. McMillan

November 20, 1987
The Honorable Samuel R. Foster, Chairman
House Invitations Committee
Columbia, S.C. 29201

Dear Mr. Foster:

This letter will confirm the following dates we have scheduled through your Committee via telephone for the Legislative Open House at the State Museum.

January 21, 1988 - 8:00-10:00 A.M. - Drop In

April 19, 1988 - 6:00- 8:00 P.M. - Reception

These two events will take place at the South Carolina State Museum, 301 Gervais Street. This invitation should be extended to the spouses of all House members.

We would appreciate confirmation of these dates and times on the House's legislative calendar.

Sincerely,
Overton G. Ganong
Executive Director

December 21, 1987
Representative Samuel R. Foster, Chairman
House Invitations Committee
P.O. Box 11867
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Representative Foster:

This is to confirm that the South Carolina Association of Regional Councils will host a legislative reception at the Town House Hotel in Columbia on January 26, 1988, from 6:00 P.M. until 7:30 P.M.

Thank you for your assistance and we look forward to meeting with members of the General Assembly.

Sincerely,
Larry B. Richardson, Sr.
Executive Director

November 13, 1987
Honorable Samuel R. Foster
Chairman, House Invitations Committee
518 Blatt Building
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Representative Foster:

The South Carolina Economic Developers Association cordially invite you and the members of the South Carolina Senate to our annual Legislative Reception to be held at the Townhouse from 7:30 P.M. to 9:30 P.M., the evening of Tuesday, January 26, 1988. We sincerely hope that you and the other members of this distinguished body will be able to join the 500 plus members of our professional association in fellowship and appreciation of your service to South Carolina and economic development.

Sincerely,
Michael W. Campbell
Vice President-Treasurer

November 19, 1987
The Honorable Samuel R. Foster
Chairman
House Invitations Committee
532 Blatt Building
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Representative Foster:

On behalf of the members of Columbia City Council and the Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce, I would like to cordially invite the members of the House and their respective staffs to a reception in honor of the South Carolina Senate and House of Representatives on Wednesday, January 27, 1988.

We look forward to welcoming each member of the House to Columbia for the start of the 1988 legislative session.

The affair will begin at 6:00 P.M. in the Embassy Suites Hotel Ballroom, located at 240 Stoneridge Drive, and should conclude around 8:00 P.M. We hope that each House member and their staffs will be able to attend this truly entertaining evening.

Yours very truly,
T. Patton Adams

The following were received and referred to the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.

January 5, 1988
The Honorable Samuel R. Foster
Chairman
Invitations and Memorial Resolutions
S.C. House of Representatives
523B Blatt Building
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Mr. Foster:

On behalf of our membership, we would like to extend an invitation to the members of the House of Representatives to join us in honoring our Regional Representative, Dr. Gwendolyn Prater of Jackson, Mississippi at a reception. Dr. Prater will be visiting Columbia on January 19 and 20, 1988 and the reception is scheduled from 6:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, January 19th at the Radisson Hotel.

We are honored to have Dr. Prater visit South Carolina and would be so pleased to have the members of the House join us in welcoming her.

Sincerely,
Annette Hairston Boette, ACSW
President

December 17, 1987
Ms. Catherine Jeter, Executive Secretary
House Invitations Committee
P.O. Box 11867
Columbia, S.C. 29211

Dear Ms. Jeter:

This is to confirm that the South Carolina Association of Regional Councils will host a legislative reception at the Town House Motel in Columbia on January 26, 1988, from 6:00 P.M. until 7:30 P.M. Mr. Sid Thomas has previously discussed this matter with you. If you have questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Thomas at 254-1100 in Columbia.

Thank you for your assistance and we look forward to meeting with members of the General Assembly.

Sincerely,
Larry B. Richardson, Sr.
Executive Director

Rep. T.M. BURRISS moved that upon completion of the introduction of Bills, the House recede until 1:45, which was agreed to.

The following was received.

June 25, 1987
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

I am hereby returning without my approval H. 3197 (R-266), an Act:
(R266) H. 3197 -- Reps. Barfield and Thrailkill: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 30-5-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, AND ACT 123 OF 1985, BOTH AS AMENDED, RELATING TO REGISTERS OF MESNE CONVEYANCES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT HORRY COUNTY SHALL HAVE A REGISTER OF MESNE CONVEYANCES APPOINTED BY THE HORRY COUNTY GOVERNING BODY.

This veto is based upon the fact that the provisions of this bill are identical to the provisions of Section 30-5-10 of S. 822 (R-214) which I signed into law June 8, 1987. It is my view that since the purpose of this bill has already been accomplished, the bill is unnecessary and should be vetoed.

Yours sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor

Received as information.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 2910 -- Ethics Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 8-13-470, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ETHICS, SO AS TO PROHIBIT MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FROM APPEARING BEFORE THE SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND THE SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE COMMISSION IN RATE OR PRICE FIXING MATTERS AND TO DELETE THE PROHIBITION AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES SO APPEARING AND ALSO DELETE THE SOUTH CAROLINA DAIRY COMMISSION.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 3195 -- Rep. J. Bradley: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 5-27-910, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS TO CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS TO SOLICIT FUNDS FROM MOTORISTS WITHIN A MUNICIPALITY, SO AS TO ALSO PERMIT THIS SOLICITATION WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF A COUNTY, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY IS IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY FOR ANY LOSS OR INJURY OCCURRING AS A RESULT OF THESE SOLICITATIONS, TO AMEND SECTION 15-78-60, RELATING TO WHEN A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY IS NOT LIABLE UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THERE IS ALSO NO LIABILITY AS A RESULT OF SOLICITATIONS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 5-27-910, AND TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-3180, RELATING TO SOLICITATIONS BY PEDESTRIANS SO AS TO AUTHORIZE SOLICITATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 5-27-910.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

S. 415 -- Judiciary Committee: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTERS 1 THROUGH 20 OF TITLE 33, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO BUSINESS CORPORATIONS, SO AS TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT OF 1988" INCLUDING PROVISIONS RELATING TO INCORPORATION OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS, PURPOSES, AND POWERS OF CORPORATIONS, NAMES, OFFICES, AND AGENTS, SHARES AND DISTRIBUTIONS, SHAREHOLDERS, DIRECTORS, AND OFFICERS, AMENDMENTS OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND BYLAWS, MERGER AND SHARE EXCHANGE, SALE OF ASSETS, DISSENTERS' RIGHTS, DISSOLUTION, FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, RECORDS, AND REPORTS, CLOSE CORPORATIONS, PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS, AND TRANSITION PROVISIONS; TO AMEND SECTIONS 33-42-30 AND 12-19-20, BOTH AS AMENDED, AND 12-19-70, 12-19-120, 15-9-210, 15-9-240, 15-9-245, AND 15-9-430, RELATING TO THE NAME OF A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, FILING OF ANNUAL REPORTS, CORPORATE LICENSE FEES OR TAXES, AND SERVICE OF PROCESS, SO AS TO CONFORM THEM TO THE NEW PROVISIONS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT OF 1988 AND TO MAKE CERTAIN OTHER CHANGES; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 15-7-35 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR VENUE IN SUITS BROUGHT AGAINST DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS; AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 12-19-130, 15-9-260, 15-63-20 THROUGH 15-63-50, 33-51-10 THROUGH 33-51-170 AND CHAPTERS 21, 23, AND 25 OF TITLE 33 RELATING TO THE TIME FOR FILING OF ANNUAL REPORTS AND PAYMENT OF FEES OR TAXES, SERVICE OF PROCESS, CHARTER ANNULMENT, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS, DISSOLUTION, FOREIGN BUSINESS CORPORATIONS, ANNUAL REPORTS, POWERS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, on:

S. 556 -- Judiciary Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 15-3-340 AND 15-67-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ACTIONS FOR RECOVERY OF REAL PROPERTY, SO AS TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF ACTIONS THAT MAY BE BROUGHT.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. DANGERFIELD, from the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 2019 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and P. Bradley: A BILL TO PROVIDE A PLAN FOR THE WRITING OF LEGAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR ATTORNEYS THROUGH A JOINT UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION UPON A FINDING OF AN EMERGENCY BY THE INSURANCE COMMISSION BECAUSE THIS INSURANCE IS NOT AVAILABLE THROUGH NORMAL CHANNELS OR AT A REASONABLE COST.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. DANGERFIELD, from the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 2699 -- Reps. Clyborne, Baker, Haskins, Kirsh, Gilbert, Petty and J. Bradley: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-35-235 SO AS TO REQUIRE INSURERS TO NOTIFY IN WRITING ALL HEALTH AND MEDICAL INSURANCE POLICYHOLDERS AND ALL GROUP MEMBERS COVERED BY A GROUP POLICY OF INSURANCE BY THE INSURER OF ANY CHANGES IN COVERAGE PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHANGE.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. DANGERFIELD, from the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 3149 -- Rep. Harvin: A BILL TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA SHAREHOLDER PROTECTION ACT OF 1988."

On motion of Rep. DANGERFIELD the Bill was referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

Rep. DANGERFIELD, from the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 3194 -- Rep. J. Bradley: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-55-200, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO A STATEMENT OF CHARGES AND NOTICE OF HEARING SERVED BY THE CHIEF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER ON A PERSON ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED AN UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE INSURANCE TRADE PRACTICE, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE COMMISSIONER TO ACT ON COMPLAINTS ALLEGING THE ABOVE WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER RECEIPT.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 2572 -- Reps. J.C. Johnson and Snow: A BILL TO REPEAL SECTION 17-13-90, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SERVICE OF CRIMINAL PROCESS ON SUNDAY.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 2591 -- Rep. Davenport: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 1-23-120 AND 1-23-125, BOTH AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR COPIES OF REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO BE GIVEN TO MEMBERS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES TO WHICH THEY ARE ASSIGNED AND TO REQUIRE A TWENTY-DAY PERIOD AFTER AMENDMENT AND RECEIPT OF THE AMENDMENT FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE REGULATION TAKES EFFECT.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 2671 -- Reps. Limehouse, Hodges and McCain: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 8-17-330, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO STATE AGENCY EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE PLANS AND PROCEDURES, SO AS TO CHANGE THE TIME FOR APPEALING TO THE STATE EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 2716 -- Reps. Evatt, M.D. Burriss, Cork, Hearn, Beasley, Corning, Hayes and Fair: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 13, TITLE 61, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO OFFENSES AGAINST AND ENFORCEMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL LAWS, BY ADDING SECTION 61-13-285 SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE TRANSFER OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS TO PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE YEARS, TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 2871 -- Rep. L. Martin: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-17-530, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PUBLIC DISORDERLY CONDUCT, SO AS TO FURTHER DEFINE THE TERM "PUBLIC PLACE" FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 2909 -- Ethics Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 8-13-120, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ETHICS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION TO MAKE AN INVESTIGATION OF STATEMENTS FILED WITH IT WITH RESPECT TO VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS CODE BY A CANDIDATE FOR PUBLIC OFFICE OR ANY PERSON, TO PROHIBIT THE ETHICS COMMISSION FROM DISCLOSING THE DISPOSITION OF A COMPLAINT CONCERNING A CANDIDATE FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE THIRTY DAYS PRIOR TO AN ELECTION, TO PROVIDE THAT THE FILING AND ALL MATTERS PERTAINING TO A COMPLAINT ARE CONFIDENTIAL UNLESS WAIVED IN WRITING, AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

S. 131 -- Senators Pope, Lourie, Giese and Leventis: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 8, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, BY ADDING CHAPTER 27 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION FOR AN EMPLOYEE OF A PUBLIC BODY WHO REPORTS A VIOLATION OF ANY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW OR REGULATION INVOLVING A PUBLIC BODY OR ITS EMPLOYEES OR OFFICIALS AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, on:

S. 179 -- Senators Shealy and Drummond: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 14-7-140, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DRAWING AND SUMMONING JURORS BY UTILIZING A COMPUTER, SO AS TO INCLUDE JURORS FOR THE GRAND JURY.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, on:

S. 260 -- Senator Waddell: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 4-9-82 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE GOVERNING BODY OF ANY PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT TO TRANSFER ITS ASSETS AND PROPERTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE DELIVERY OF CLINICAL MEDICAL SERVICES TO ANOTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OR AN APPROPRIATE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER AND FOR THE DISSOLUTION OF THE DISTRICT UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE TRANSFER.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, on:

S. 279 -- Senator Thomas E. Smith, Jr.: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 4-9-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF COUNTY COUNCILS, SO AS TO DELETE A REFERENCE TO AN EMPLOYEE DISCHARGED BY AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, AND TO ADD A SPECIFIC REFERENCE THAT AN EMPLOYEE DISCHARGED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OR DESIGNATED DEPARTMENT HEAD SHALL FOLLOW THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES AS ESTABLISHED BY COUNTY COUNCIL, BUT IF NO GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES ARE IN PLACE, TO ALLOW THE DISCHARGED EMPLOYEE TO REQUEST A HEARING BEFORE COUNTY COUNCIL.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, on:

S. 651 -- Senators Thomas E. Smith, Jr., Peeler, Bryan and Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-23-1080, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST FURNISHING A PATIENT OR PRISONER UNDER JURISDICTION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH WITH ANY MATTER DECLARED CONTRABAND, SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO INTENTIONALLY OR NEGLIGENTLY ALLOW A PATIENT OR PRISONER TO HAVE ACCESS TO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, FIREARMS, DANGEROUS WEAPONS, OR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AS DEFINED IN SECTION 44-53-110.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

S. 732 -- Judiciary Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 15-3-40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EXTENDING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH CERTAIN PERSONS UNDER DISABILITY MAY BRING A CIVIL ACTION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN ACTION ACCRUING UNDER THE SOUTH CAROLINA TORT CLAIMS ACT IS NOT SO EXTENDED; SECTION 15-78-20, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS REGARDING THE TORT CLAIMS ACT, SO AS TO FURTHER DELINEATE WHEN THE DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IS REINSTATED FOR GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES AND TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS IN REGARD TO BRINGING GOVERNMENTALLY EMPLOYED PHYSICIANS AND DENTISTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT; SECTION 15-78-30, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT, SO AS TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "EMPLOYEE" AND "SCOPE OF OFFICIAL DUTY"; SECTION 15-78-60, RELATING TO EXCEPTIONS TO THE WAIVER OF IMMUNITY, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THESE EXCEPTIONS IN REGARD TO RECREATIONAL AREAS, ACTIVITIES OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATE GUARD, AND GOVERNMENTALLY EMPLOYED PHYSICIANS AND DENTISTS; SECTION 15-78-70, RELATING TO THE LIABILITY FOR AN ACT OF A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THIS LIABILITY IN REGARD TO GOVERNMENTALLY EMPLOYED PHYSICIANS AND DENTISTS; SECTIONS 15-78-100 AND 15-78-110, RELATING TO WHEN AN ACTION UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT MUST BE INSTITUTED, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THIS TIME; SECTION 15-78-120, RELATING TO LIMITATIONS ON THE AMOUNT OF RECOVERY, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THESE LIMITATIONS AND TO INCREASE THESE LIMITATIONS IN REGARD TO GOVERNMENTALLY EMPLOYED PHYSICIANS AND DENTISTS; SECTION 59-67-710, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE ON STATE-OWNED SCHOOL BUSES AND THE BENEFITS AND LIMITS OF LIABILITY THEREON, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THESE LIMITS AND LIABILITY; AND TO PROVIDE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE STATUTORY TIME FOR FILING OF CERTAIN CLAIMS UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT MUST BE COMPUTED.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. L. PHILLIPS, from the Committee on Education and Public Works, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

S. 93 -- Senator Lourie: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 58-17-1450, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EXAMINATION OF RAILROAD CROSSINGS BY COUNTY SUPERVISORS, SO AS TO ASSIGN THE RESPONSIBILITY TO EXAMINE CROSSINGS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER, TO REQUIRE HIM TO HAVE THE HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS OR TO DIRECT RAILROAD COMPANIES, COUNTIES, AND MUNICIPALITIES TO TAKE APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE SAFETY MEASURES, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF SAFETY-RELATED EXPENSES, AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 2955 -- Reps. Hodges and Baxley: A BILL TO PROVIDE THAT IN CIVIL ACTIONS PROOF OF SERVICE BY PUBLICATION MAY BE MADE BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF A SOUTH CAROLINA NOTARY PUBLIC THAT THE APPROPRIATE NOTICE HAS BEEN PRINTED OR PUBLISHED.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 3227 -- Reps. P. Bradley, Toal, Haskins, Davenport, Baxley, G. Bailey, Limehouse, Jones, Barfield, Wilkins, Klapman, Day, Pettigrew, J.W. McLeod, R. Brown, Gentry, Hawkins, Lockemy, Fair, Taylor, Ferguson, Thrailkill, Nesbitt, Petty, Baker, Rice, McCain, Mattos, J. Harris, Wells, Felder, Koon, Townsend, Kay, Helmly, Sharpe, Sheheen, H. Brown, G. Brown, Mappus, E.B. McLeod, Elliott, McGinnis, Huff, T.M. Burriss, Hearn, Moss, O. Phillips, Chamblee, D. Martin, Dangerfield, Neilson, Lewis, Evatt and Cork: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 15 OF TITLE 16, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO OFFENSES AGAINST MORALITY AND DECENCY BY ADDING SECTION 16-15-450, SO AS TO MAKE IT A FELONY FOR ANY PERSON TO FERTILIZE FEMALE ANIMALS WITH HUMAN SPERM, TO ATTEMPT THIS FERTILIZATION, OR TO ENGAGE IN RESEARCH OR CONDUCT EXPERIMENTS REGARDING THIS FERTILIZATION, TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS, AND TO ADD VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 16-15-450 TO THE LIST OF CRIMES CLASSIFIED AS FELONIES BY SECTION 16-1-10.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 2013 -- Rep. Taylor: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 7-13-35, 7-13-40, 7-13-50, 7-13-60, AS AMENDED, 7-13-70, 7-13-610, 7-13-830, 7-15-450, 7-17-510, 7-17-520, 7-17-530, 7-17-540, 7-17-550, 7-17-560, 7-17-570, AND 7-25-140, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ELECTIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT PRIMARIES, EXCEPT MUNICIPAL PRIMARIES, MUST BE CONDUCTED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND THE RESPECTIVE COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSIONS; TO AMEND ARTICLE 5 OF CHAPTER 13 OF TITLE 7, RELATING TO BALLOTS FOR PRIMARY ELECTIONS, BY ADDING SECTION 7-13-611 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ARRANGEMENT OF EACH "OFFICIAL COUNTY BALLOT" AND OF EVERY "OFFICIAL STATE BALLOT"; TO PROVIDE THAT NOTHING IN THIS ACT OR ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW MAY BE CONSTRUED AS PROHIBITING POLITICAL PARTIES FROM CONDUCTING PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARIES; TO PROVIDE THAT, IN THE CASE OF ANY COUNTY WHICH OPERATES ITS ELECTIONS THROUGH AN ELECTION AND REGISTRATION COMMISSION COMPOSED OF SEVEN MEMBERS, THE STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION ARE NOT AFFECTED OR CHANGED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; TO REPEAL SECTIONS 7-9-110, RELATING TO PERMITTING COUNTY POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEES TO ESTABLISH A COUNTY PARTY ELECTION COMMISSION FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES, AND 7-13-90, RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF MANAGERS OF PRIMARIES; AND TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN PRIMARIES, EXCEPT MUNICIPAL PRIMARIES, MUST BE CONDUCTED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND THE COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSIONS ON THE SECOND TUESDAY IN JUNE OF EACH GENERAL ELECTION YEAR.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WHITE, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 2407 -- Reps. P. Harris, Blackwell and Waldrop: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 1-13-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS UNDER THE "SOUTH CAROLINA HUMAN AFFAIRS LAW", SO AS TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF "AGE"; TO AMEND SECTION 1-13-80, RELATING TO UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES AND EXCEPTIONS UNDER THE "SOUTH CAROLINA HUMAN AFFAIRS LAW", SO AS TO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, MAKE CHANGES WITH RESPECT TO AGE LEVELS DEALING WITH COMPULSORY RETIREMENT AND RELATED MATTERS, PROVIDE THAT IT IS NOT UNLAWFUL FOR AN EMPLOYER WHICH IS A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY TO FAIL OR REFUSE TO HIRE OR TO DISCHARGE ANY INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S AGE IF THE ACTION IS TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO THE EMPLOYMENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL AS A FIREFIGHTER OR AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND THE INDIVIDUAL HAS ATTAINED THE AGE OF HIRING OR RETIREMENT IN EFFECT UNDER APPLICABLE LAW ON MARCH 3, 1983, AND PURSUANT TO A BONA FIDE HIRING OR RETIREMENT PLAN THAT IS NOT A SUBTERFUGE TO EVADE THE PURPOSES OF CHAPTER 13 OF TITLE 1, AND PROVIDE THAT NOTHING IN CHAPTER 13 OF TITLE 1 RELATING TO AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT MAY BE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF ANY EMPLOYEE WHO HAS ATTAINED SEVENTY YEARS OF AGE AND WHO IS SERVING UNDER A CONTRACT OF UNLIMITED TENURE (OR SIMILAR ARRANGEMENT PROVIDING FOR UNLIMITED TENURE) AT AN INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION, INCLUDING PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF THIS PROVISION ON DECEMBER 31, 1993; AND TO AMEND SECTIONS 9-8-40 AND 9-8-60, RELATING TO THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR JUDGES AND SOLICITORS, SO AS TO DELETE REFERENCES TO THE ATTAINING OF AGE SEVENTY-TWO.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WHITE, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 2533 -- Rep. Blackwell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-950, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR PARDON CONSIDERATION, SO AS TO ADD A GUIDELINE WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE THE VICTIM OF A CRIME OR ANY MEMBER OF THE CONVICTED PERSON'S FAMILY LIVING WITHIN THE STATE TO PETITION FOR A PARDON FOR ANY PERSON WHO IS NO LONGER AN INMATE OR A PROBATIONER.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WHITE, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 3043 -- Reps. Simpson and Hendricks: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 43-25-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND, SO AS TO INCREASE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION FROM SEVEN TO EIGHT MEMBERS, PROVIDE THAT THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER MUST BE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR, WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, FROM THE STATE AT LARGE FOR A FOUR-YEAR TERM AND MUST BE A MEMBER IN GOOD STANDING OF A LIONS CLUB IN THIS STATE, AND PROVIDE THAT THE GOVERNOR SHALL SELECT THIS ADDITIONAL MEMBER FROM A LIST SUBMITTED BY THE STATEWIDE ORGANIZATION OF LIONS INTERNATIONAL; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE INITIAL TERM OF THIS ADDITIONAL MEMBER.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WHITE, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 3153 -- Rep. Hearn: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 6-9-60, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ADOPTION AND MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN STANDARD CODES BY REFERENCE BY MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE THE COUNCIL OF AMERICAN BUILDING OFFICIALS ONE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLING CODE FOR THE STANDARD CODE, CHANGE THE COMPOSITION OF THE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL BY DELETING REFERENCES TO REPRESENTATIVES FROM VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND PROVIDING THAT EACH MEMBER MUST BE A MEMBER OF THE INDUSTRY OR PROFESSION HE REPRESENTS, REDUCE THE TERM OF A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL FROM SIX TO FOUR YEARS, DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT AT LEAST ONE MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL MUST BE A MEMBER OF EACH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, DELETE THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF THE COUNCIL TO DECIDE TO WHAT EXTENT ANY JURISDICTION MAY VARY FROM THE CODES LISTED IN THIS SECTION, DELETE OBSOLETE LANGUAGE, AUTHORIZE THE COUNCIL TO ELECT A VICE-CHAIRMAN, AND DELETE THE AUTHORITY OF THE COUNCIL TO ADOPT REGULATIONS.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WHITE, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 3175 -- Reps. Wilkins, Tucker, Wilder, J.W. Johnson, D. Martin, McEachin, Hayes, Hendricks, H. Brown, Nettles, J. Rogers, Clyborne, Haskins, McElveen, Waldrop and Rhoad: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 11 OF TITLE 23, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SHERIFFS, BY ADDING SECTION 23-11-110 SO AS TO PROVIDE QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR SHERIFFS.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WHITE, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

S. 582 -- Senators Shealy, Thomas and Patterson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-75-100, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSURE UNDER THE PROFESSIONAL COUNSELOR, ASSOCIATE COUNSELOR, AND MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPIST LICENSING ACT, SO AS TO CLARIFY THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF CLINICAL CONTACT AND SUPERVISED EXPERIENCE FOR A MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPIST AS TWELVE HUNDRED HOURS.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WHITE, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, on:

S. 625 -- Senators Hayes, Nell W. Smith and Moore: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 20-7-1895 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A STATEWIDE ADOPTION EXCHANGE WHICH IS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES TO RECRUIT ADOPTIVE FAMILIES.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WHITE, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

S. 759 -- Senator Lee: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 1 120 OF 1960, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE LIBERTY-CHESNEE- FINGERVILLE WATER DISTRICT IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ELECTION INSTEAD OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION TO BEGIN IN 1989, PROVIDE FOR THE TERMS OF OFFICE, STAGGERING OF TERMS, METHOD BY WHICH CANDIDATES' NAMES MAY BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT, AND FOR FILLING OF VACANCIES.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WHITE, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, on:

S. 775 -- Medical Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, RELATING TO STANDARDS FOR LICENSING OUTPATIENT FACILITIES FOR CHEMICALLY DEPENDENT OR ADDICTED PERSONS, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 810, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. L. PHILLIPS, from the Committee on Education and Public Works, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 2734 -- Reps. Keyserling, T. Rogers, Shelton, White, Hearn, McTeer, Foxworth, Foster, Wilder, Sheheen, Rudnick, Whipper, Moss, Nesbitt, Helmly, Cork, Kirsh, H. Brown, Hayes, Hodges, Toal, Neilson, J. Rogers, Evatt, Washington and Dangerfield: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 32 TO TITLE 59 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH EDUCATION PROGRAM IN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS THROUGH APPROPRIATE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, ADEQUATE TEACHER TRAINING, REQUIRED HOURS OF HEALTH INSTRUCTION, AND AN EXEMPTION FOR STUDENT PARTICIPATION.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

The following was introduced:

H. 3437 -- Reps. Sheheen, J. Rogers, Dangerfield, McLellan, L. Phillips, Pearce, Toal, White and Wilkins: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION INVITING HIS EXCELLENCY, CARROLL A. CAMPBELL, JR., GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO ADDRESS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN JOINT SESSION AT 7:00 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1988.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That His Excellency, Carroll A. Campbell, Jr., Governor of the State of South Carolina, is invited to address the General Assembly in joint session at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 20, 1988, in the Hall of the House of Representatives.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

The following was introduced:

H. 3438 -- Rep. Sharpe: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE TO REMOVE ALL PRINTED OR OTHER MATERIAL FROM EACH MEMBER'S DESK UPON THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1988, WHICH THE MEMBER DOES NOT PLACE INSIDE OR UNDER HIS ROLLTOP DESK, AND TO PLACE THIS MATERIAL IN THE MEMBER'S BLATT BUILDING OFFICE.

The Resolution was ordered referred to the Committee on Rules.

The following was introduced:

H. 3439 -- Rep. Edwards: A HOUSE RESOLUTION INVITING A GROUP OF THE STUDENTS FROM THE SOUTH CAROLINA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND BLIND TO THE HOUSE CHAMBER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1988, AT 12:00 NOON, TO LEAD THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG IN SIGN LANGUAGE AND TO PERFORM FOR THE HOUSE TWO PATRIOTIC SONGS.

The Resolution was ordered referred to the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.

The following was introduced:

H. 3440 -- Rep. Harvin: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NAMING ROBERT C.J. CHEN AS HONORARY REPRESENTATIVE FOR SOUTH CAROLINA TO THE PROVINCE OF TAIWAN.

The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.

The following was introduced:

H. 3441 -- Reps. Beasley and Hayes: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE HONORABLE PARKER EVATT OF RICHLAND COUNTY AND TO EXTEND THE BEST WISHES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THEIR FORMER COLLEAGUE IN HIS NEW POSITION AS COMMISSIONER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.

Whereas; it is with mixed emotions that the members of the General Assembly bid farewell to the Honorable Parker Evatt of Richland County as he leaves the Hall of the House of Representatives to become chief of South Carolina's prisons; and

Whereas, Mr. Evatt follows Commissioner William Leeke to head the South Carolina Department of Corrections beginning his new job in the fall of 1987; and

Whereas, as Mr. Evatt ends his outstanding career of thirteen years in the legislature, the State loses a well-qualified, highly respected individual, but another area of state government gains the services of a man with a strong legislative background in corrections matters and in issues concerning our youth; and

Whereas, Mr. Evatt has headed the Alston Wilkes Society for seventeen years and, among his numerous awards and honors in his work with the youth and prisoners of our State, he has received the following: Outstanding Achievement Award, National Association of Volunteers in Criminal Justice, 1979; Legislator of the Year,

South Carolina Perinatal Association, 1980; Distinguished Service Award, South Carolina Correctional Association, 1981; Youth Advocacy Award, Council on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1983; Leadership Award, South Carolina Department of Parole and Community Corrections, 1984; Legislator of the Year, Council for Exceptional Children, 1985; and Child Advocate Award, South Carolina Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics, 1986; and

Whereas, as chairman of the Joint Legislative Committee on Children, Mr. Evatt has been a vigorous and tireless advocate for the children of our State fighting to protect their rights and giving them a voice in his continuous support of issues in their best interest. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the members of the General Assembly recognize the accomplishments and contributions of the Honorable Parker Evatt of Richland County and extend best wishes to their former colleague in his new position as Commissioner of the South Carolina Department of Corrections.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Honorable Parker Evatt.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

The following was introduced:

H. 3442 -- Rep. Rhoad: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE CONGRATULATIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO HERBERT R. KOON, JR., OF BAMBERG COUNTY ON BEING SELECTED 1986 COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF THE YEAR FOR THE FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

The following was introduced:

H. 3443 -- Rep. McTeer: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE TWIN BROTHERS, LYNN H. YOUMANS AND ROBERT A. YOUMANS, OF FURMAN IN HAMPTON COUNTY FOR RECEIVING THE SOUTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD FOR 1987.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

The following was introduced:

H. 3444 -- Rep. Fair: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION TO USE THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CHAMBERS ON THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 1988, AFTER THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 1988, AND SATURDAY, APRIL 30, 1988, TO CONDUCT A YOUTH IN GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.

The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.

The Senate sent to the House the following:

S. 882 -- Senator Hayes: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM R. BRADFORD, JR., OF YORK COUNTY, AND TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO NAME THE BRIDGE PRESENTLY KNOWN AS DOBYS BRIDGE ROAD BRIDGE IN YORK COUNTY THE "WILLIAM R. BRADFORD, JR.-, BRIDGE".

The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the York Delegation.

Senators Patterson, Martschink and Moore of a committee from the Senate informed the House that the Senate was organized and ready for the transaction of business.

The SPEAKER appointed Reps. J. ROGERS, LEWIS and KEYSERLING of a committee to notify the Senate that the House had organized and was ready for the transaction of business.

The following Bills and Joint Resolutions were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:

H. 3279 -- Rep. Limehouse: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 23 OF ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO OPEN SESSIONS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE AND WHEN SECRET SESSIONS ARE PERMITTED, SO AS TO PROHIBIT SECRET, CLOSED, OR EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3280 -- Rep. Limehouse: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 30-4-70, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CLOSED MEETINGS OF A PUBLIC BODY UNDER THE SOUTH CAROLINA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND EXECUTIVE SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SO AS TO PROHIBIT EXECUTIVE SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE ABOVE PROVISIONS ARE EFFECTIVE UPON THE RATIFICATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROHIBITING CLOSED, SECRET, OR EXECUTIVE SESSIONS OF EACH HOUSE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3281 -- Rep. Fair: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 44-29-220 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE TAX COMMISSION TO INCLUDE INFORMATION ON ACQUIRED IMMUNODEFICIENCY SYNDROME IN INCOME TAX RETURNS, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TO PREPARE THE INFORMATION, AND FOR THE INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED TO ANY OTHER STATE AGENCY.

Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.

H. 3282 -- Reps. Aydlette, McElveen, Lockemy, H. Brown, Thrailkill, Moss, Winstead, G. Bailey, Haskins, Whipper, Mappus, Kay, Klapman, Townsend, Blackwell, Corning, White, Elliott, Derrick, Koon, Simpson, P. Bradley, Wells, Pettigrew, McAbee, Petty, R. Brown, McGinnis, Nesbitt, Wilder, Ogburn, Day, Cooper, Davenport, Baker, T.C. Alexander, J.C. Johnson, McCain, Clyborne and McEachin: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT, BY ADDING SECTION 37 SO AS TO PROHIBIT ANY REGULATION PROMULGATED BY A STATE AGENCY, BOARD, COMMISSION, COMMITTEE, OR DEPARTMENT FROM BECOMING EFFECTIVE UNLESS APPROVED BY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND TO ALLOW THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO PROVIDE BY LAW FOR THE PROMULGATION OF EMERGENCY REGULATIONS.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

S. 116 -- Senator J. Verne Smith: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-4100, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PROHIBITING SPILLING LOADS ON HIGHWAYS AND REMOVING SPILLED LOADS, SO AS TO LIMIT THE HEIGHT OF LOADS OF ROCK, GRAVEL, STONE, OR OTHER SIMILAR SUBSTANCES ON TRUCKS, TRAILERS, OR OTHER VEHICLES WHEN DRIVEN OR MOVED ON ANY HIGHWAY; TO PROVIDE THAT THE LOAD MUST BE SECURELY COVERED OR THE VEHICLE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED TO PREVENT THE LOAD FROM ESCAPING, AS ALTERNATIVES TO LIMITING THE HEIGHT OF THE LOAD; TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE PROVISION REQUIRING PUBLIC HIGHWAYS TO BE CLEANED OF GLASS OR OBJECTS BY OPERATORS OF VEHICLES FROM WHICH THE GLASS OR OBJECTS HAVE FALLEN; AND TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

S. 315 -- Senator Drummond: A BILL TO REAUTHORIZE THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY FOR SIX YEARS; TO AMEND SECTION 40-15-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE BOARD, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE DENTAL HYGIENIST MEMBER TO VOTE ON DISCIPLINARY MATTERS FOR DENTISTS; TO AMEND SECTION 40-15-80, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF "DENTAL HYGIENE", SO AS TO REDEFINE THE TERM, TO AUTHORIZE A REGISTERED HYGIENIST TO PERFORM CERTAIN SERVICES UNDER THE GENERAL SUPERVISION OF A LICENSED DENTIST, AND TO DEFINE "GENERAL SUPERVISION"; AND TO AMEND SECTION 40-15-270, RELATING TO RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS FOR DENTISTS AND DENTAL HYGIENISTS LICENSED IN OTHER STATES, SO AS TO DELETE LANGUAGE REQUIRING MEMBERSHIP IN REGIONAL TESTING SERVICES AND PROVIDE THAT THE BOARD MAY GRANT LICENSES TO LICENSEES OF OTHER STATES IF THE REQUIREMENT FOR LICENSURE IN THOSE STATES IS SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSURE REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 15 OF TITLE 40.

Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.

S. 855 -- Senators Lourie, Courson, Giese and Patterson: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 626 OF 1980, RELATING TO MAGISTRATES AND MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTS IN RICHLAND COUNTY, SO AS TO MERGE THE HORRELL HILL DISTRICT INTO THE EASTOVER DISTRICT AND TO PROVIDE FOR A MINISTERIAL MAGISTRATE WHO MAY BE APPOINTED FROM THE COUNTY AT LARGE.

Referred to Richland Delegation.

H. 3283 -- Rep. J. Bradley: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-29-260, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO NOTICE AND APPROVAL OF EXTRAORDINARY DIVIDENDS OR DISTRIBUTIONS BY DOMESTIC INSURERS BEING REQUIRED, SO AS TO REVISE WHAT CONSTITUTES AN EXTRAORDINARY DIVIDEND OR DISTRIBUTION FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3284 -- Rep. Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 35, CHAPTER 5, TITLE 56, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EQUIPMENT AND IDENTIFICATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF DEVICES ON MOTOR VEHICLES TO DETECT THE PRESENCE OF RADAR WHICH MEASURES THE SPEED OF MOTOR VEHICLES.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3285 -- Rep. J. Bradley: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 51, TITLE 15, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO WRONGFUL DEATH ACTIONS, BY ADDING SECTION 15-51-45, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN UNMARRIED TESTATOR IN HIS LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT MAY STIPULATE THAT A PERSON OTHER THAN THOSE PERMITTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE MAY MAINTAIN A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON WHO CAUSES THE TESTATOR'S WRONGFUL DEATH.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3286 -- Rep. M.D. Burriss: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 11, CHAPTER 3, TITLE 16, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL OFFENSES AGAINST PERSONS, BY ADDING SECTION 16-3-1075 SO AS TO PERMIT THE USE OF DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE BY AN OCCUPANT OF A DWELLING AGAINST AN INTRUDER UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3287 -- Rep. J. Bradley: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 44, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO VITAL STATISTICS, BY ADDING SECTION 44-63-210 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SHALL PROMULGATE REGULATIONS WHICH PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE BY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES OF A BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR A FETUS WHICH IS BORN DEAD.

Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.

H. 3288 -- Rep. J. Bradley: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 47, TITLE 40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REGISTRATION OF PERSONS LICENSED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE OR OSTEOPATHY, BY ADDING SECTION 40-47-425 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ALL PERSONS LICENSED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE OR OSTEOPATHY WHEN APPLYING FOR AN ANNUAL REREGISTRATION CERTIFICATE SHALL FILE WITH THE BOARD ON A FORM APPROVED BY IT A CERTIFICATE THAT THEY WILL ACCEPT AS FULL PAYMENT FOR SERVICES RENDERED TO PATIENTS COVERED BY MEDICARE THE MEDICARE-DETERMINED REASONABLE CHARGE FOR THOSE SERVICES; AND TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 47 OF TITLE 40, RELATING TO PHYSICIANS, SURGEONS AND OSTEOPATHS BY ADDING SECTION 40-47-195 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT PERSONS APPLYING FOR TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT LICENSES TO PRACTICE MEDICINE OR OSTEOPATHY MAY NOT BE ISSUED THE LICENSE UNTIL THEY HAVE EXECUTED THE CERTIFICATE REQUIRED BY SECTION 40-47-425.

Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.

H. 3289 -- Rep. J. Bradley: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-17-495, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE UNLAWFUL TRANSPORTING OF A CHILD UNDER SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE OUTSIDE THIS STATE WITH INTENT TO VIOLATE A CUSTODY ORDER OF A COURT OF THIS STATE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS ALSO A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION FOR ANY PERSON TO SO TRANSPORT OR KEEP A CHILD OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF THIS STATE WHEN A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION OF ANOTHER STATE HAS AWARDED CUSTODY OF THE CHILD TO A CUSTODIAN LAWFULLY RESIDING IN THIS STATE WHO IS MAINTAINING THE CHILD IN THIS STATE NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE COURT ORDER.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3290 -- Reps. Harvin, Aydlette, J. Brown, Davenport, Day, Foxworth, P. Harris, Haskins, Kirsh, Klapman, Limehouse, Moss, Rhoad, Sharpe, Barfield, Baxley, J.H. Burriss and Corning: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-3-65 SO AS TO ENACT THE HOME PROTECTION BILL OF RIGHTS.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3291 -- Rep. Davenport: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING CONGRESS TO REFRAIN FROM ENACTING ANY PHYSICIAN DIAGNOSIS RELATED GROUP (DRG) PAYMENT SCHEME UNDER MEDICARE AND TO ADOPT HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 30 AND SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 15 WHICH OPPOSE DRG'S FOR DOCTORS AND THE MANDATED ASSIGNMENT UNDER MEDICARE.

Referred to Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.

H. 3292 -- Rep. Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 46-41-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS IN REGARD TO THE LICENSING AND BONDING OF DEALERS AND HANDLERS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, SO AS TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS" IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN PERSONS PURCHASING TIMBER ARE CONSIDERED DEALERS IN THESE PRODUCTS.

Referred to Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

H. 3293 -- Rep. McLellan: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-11-190 SO AS TO DEFINE AS A PRIMITIVE WEAPON A RIFLE,.36 CALIBER OR LARGER, WITH A ONE-EIGHTH INCH NONMAGNIFIED PEEP SITE ON THE REAR OF THE BARREL.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3294 -- Rep. J. Bradley: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO MEMORIALIZE THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESS TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO STOP SUPPLYING ANY KIND OF FUNDING, AID, OR TRADE TO THE SOVIET UNION AND TO ALL OTHER COMMUNIST NATIONS.

Referred to Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.

H. 3295 -- Rep. Day: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-645, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PAROLE ORDERS, SO AS TO REQUIRE ALL MEMBERS OF THE PAROLE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BOARD TO AUTHORIZE AND SIGN ORDERS AUTHORIZING PAROLE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF MURDER.

Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.

H. 3296 -- Rep. Clyborne: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 18-7-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT IN A MAGISTRATE'S OR MUNICIPAL COURT, SO AS TO CHANGE FROM TEN TO THIRTY DAYS THE TIME AN APPELLANT HAS TO FILE HIS NOTICE OF APPEAL.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3297 -- Rep. J. Rogers: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 58-27-1300, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY, POWERS, FRANCHISES, OR PRIVILEGES OF ELECTRIC UTILITIES WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ELECTRIC UTILITIES MAY DISPOSE OF PROPERTY, POWERS, FRANCHISES, OR PRIVILEGES OWNED BY THEM OUTSIDE THIS STATE OR PROPERTY WHICH HAS AN INITIAL COST OF ONE MILLION DOLLARS OR LESS WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3298 -- Reps. Day, Winstead, Mappus, H. Brown, Dangerfield and Moss: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 59, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EDUCATION, BY ADDING CHAPTER 130 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A SEPARATE GOVERNING BOARD FOR THE COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON; TO AMEND SECTION 59-101-10, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, SO AS TO DESIGNATE THE COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT INSTITUTION UNDER ITS OWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND TO DESIGNATE LANDER COLLEGE AND FRANCIS MARION COLLEGE BY NAME AND PROVIDE THAT THEY ARE GOVERNED BY THE STATE COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES; TO AMEND SECTION 59-101-20, RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF THE COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON TO THE STATE, SO AS TO DELETE CERTAIN PROVISIONS, INCLUDING THE PROVISION THAT THE COLLEGE BE GOVERNED BY THE STATE COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES; TO AMEND SECTION 59-131-10, RELATING TO THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE STATE COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO PROVIDE PARKING FACILITIES AT THE COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON, SO AS TO DELETE REFERENCE TO THE STATE COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TO INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON, AND TO DELETE CERTAIN OTHER LANGUAGE; TO AMEND SECTION 59-131-30, RELATING TO PARKING FACILITIES AT THE COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON AND THE PROVISIONS THAT BONDS ARE PAYABLE SOLELY FROM REVENUES OF PARKING FACILITIES, SO AS TO DELETE REFERENCE TO THE STATE COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND TO INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON; TO AMEND SECTION 59-112-10, RELATING TO DETERMINATION OF RATES OF TUITION AND FEES AND DEFINITIONS THEREUNDER, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT "STATE INSTITUTION" MEANS POST-SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON, AMONG OTHER BOARDS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE SELECTION OF THE INITIAL TRUSTEES FOR THE SEPARATE GOVERNING BOARD FOR THE COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

H. 3299 -- Rep. Day: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-37-226 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A PARTIAL EXEMPTION FROM AD VALOREM TAXATION FOR PRIVATELY-OWNED COMMUNITY SWIMMING POOLS OPENED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AT LEAST FORTY PERCENT OF THE TIME.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3300 -- Rep. Kirsh: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 55 OF TITLE 44, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO WATER, SEWAGE, WASTE DISPOSAL, AND THE LIKE, BY ADDING ARTICLE 19 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE SALE OF CLEANING AGENTS CONTAINING PHOSPHORUS.

Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.

H. 3301 -- Rep. Waldrop: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-1240, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DISPLAY OF MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE PLATES, SO AS TO REQUIRE LICENSE PLATES TO BE ATTACHED TO FRONT AND REAR OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE FOR MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION YEARS BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER, 1989.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

H. 3302 -- Rep. Waldrop: A BILL TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO USE ANY DEVICE, COMMONLY KNOWN AS A RADAR DETECTOR, THE EFFECT OF WHICH IS TO DETECT AND COUNTERACT THE USE OF RADAR OR SIMILAR EQUIPMENT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN ASCERTAINING THE RATE OF TRAVEL OF MOTOR VEHICLES, TO PROVIDE PENALTIES, TO PROVIDE FOR THE SEIZURE AND DESTRUCTION OF THE UNLAWFUL DEVICE, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROMULGATION OF REGULATIONS BY THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

H. 3303 -- Rep. Waldrop: A BILL TO PROHIBIT THE ENTERING INTO OR PROPOSAL OF A PLEA BARGAIN AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF ANY PERSON CHARGED WITH A VIOLENT CRIME AS DEFINED IN SECTION 16-1-60, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, UNTIL THE APPROVAL OF THE VICTIM OF THE CRIME OR OF HIS NEAREST RELATIVE HAS BEEN OBTAINED AND TO REQUIRE THE COURT TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER SUCH APPROVAL HAS BEEN GIVEN.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3304 -- Rep. Kirsh: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 52-17-20, 52-17-30, AND 52-17-40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO BINGO, SO AS TO TRANSFER THE LICENSING FUNCTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN REGARD TO BINGO TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3305 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-63-80 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT INTEREST AT THE LEGAL RATE MUST BE PAID BY A LIFE INSURER ON A LUMP SUM DEATH BENEFIT IF THE INSURER FAILS TO PAY THE BENEFIT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE CLAIMANT SUBMITTING PROOF OF DEATH.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3306 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-29-70, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA LIFE AND ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE ASSOCIATION HAS NO LIABILITY UNDER CHAPTER 29, TITLE 38, FOR COVERED POLICIES OF A DOMESTIC INSURER FOR RESIDENTS OF ANOTHER STATE EXCEPT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 38-29-80, RELATING TO THE ASSOCIATION AND ASSESSMENTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IN THE EVENT AN ASSESSMENT AGAINST A MEMBER INSURER IS ABATED OR DEFERRED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BECAUSE OF CERTAIN LIMITATIONS, THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE ASSESSMENT IS ABATED OR DEFERRED MAY, RATHER THAN MUST, BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE OTHER MEMBER INSURERS IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE BASIS FOR ASSESSMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 38-29-80.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3307 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTIONS 38-43-107, 38-45-35, 38-47-15, AND 38-49-25 SO AS TO REQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLYING FOR AN INSURANCE AGENT'S, BROKER'S, ADJUSTER'S, OR DAMAGE APPRAISER'S LICENSE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE TO FURNISH THE DEPARTMENT HIS BUSINESS AND RESIDENCE ADDRESS AND TO REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT WITHIN TEN DAYS OF ANY CHANGE IN ADDRESS.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3308 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 13, TITLE 38, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO INSURANCE, BY ADDING SECTION 38-13-85 SO AS TO REQUIRE EACH INSURER AUTHORIZED TO WRITE INSURANCE IN THIS STATE TO FILE CERTAIN INFORMATION ANNUALLY WITH THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS, TO PROVIDE THAT THE ASSOCIATION AND ITS AUTHORIZED COMMITTEES, EMPLOYEES, OR PERSONS ARE IMMUNE FROM CIVIL LIABILITY WHEN DISSEMINATING THIS INFORMATION IN ABSENCE OF ACTUAL MALICE, AND TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE BY THE ASSOCIATION MUST BE CONFIDENTIAL.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3309 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-75-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO A FOREIGN OR ALIEN FIRE INSURER BEING REQUIRED TO WRITE ON THE FACE OF EACH FIRE INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED BY IT THE NAME OF THE COUNTY ENTITLED TO AN ALLOCATION OF THE PREMIUMS THEREON AND THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY SO INSURED, SO AS TO MAKE THIS PROVISION APPLICABLE TO ALL FIRE INSURERS.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3310 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-65-40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES, AND SECTION 38-71-730, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP HEALTH, GROUP ACCIDENT, AND GROUP ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF EMPLOYEES OR MEMBERS SHALL PARTICIPATE BEFORE THE POLICY MAY BE PLACED IN FORCE.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3311 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-3-90, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE INSURANCE COMMISSION, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ATTENDANCE OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AT PUBLIC AND EXECUTIVE COMMISSION MEETINGS; AND SECTION 38-3-110, RELATING TO THE DUTIES OF THE CHIEF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, SO AS TO REVISE HIS DUTIES TO REPORT VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS AND TO INSTITUTE CIVIL ACTIONS RELATIVE TO THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3312 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-13-80, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT EVERY INSURER FILE AN ANNUAL STATEMENT WITH THE CHIEF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER SHOWING THE BUSINESS STANDING AND FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE INSURER, SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT THE STATEMENT BE VERIFIED BY TWO OF ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICERS INSTEAD OF BEING SIGNED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3313 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 38-15-10 AND 38-15-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SURETY INSURERS AND THE SPECIAL AUTHORITY REQUIRED FOR WRITING CERTAIN BONDS, FORMS OF THE BONDS, AND THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE SPECIAL AUTHORITY, SO AS TO DELETE THE GOVERNOR FROM THE LIST OF STATE OFFICIALS AUTHORIZED TO ACT UNDER THESE PROVISIONS.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3314 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-13-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO INSURANCE, SO AS TO MAKE THE INSPECTION AND EXAMINATION OF DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANIES DISCRETIONARY INSTEAD OF MANDATORY.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3315 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 38-65-60, 38-65-70, 38-65-210, AND 38-65-310, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO GROUP LIFE INSURANCE, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR CONTINUED COVERAGE DURING AN INSURED'S TOTAL DISABILITY AND DELIVERY OF CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE TO COVERED DEBTORS, TO REQUIRE ADJUSTMENTS WHEN THE SEX OF AN INSURED IS MISSTATED, TO INCREASE THE LIMITATION ON THE AMOUNT WHICH THE INSURER MAY PAY TO PERSONS WHO INCUR EXPENSE BY REASON OF THE DEATH OF AN INSURED WITH NO NAMED BENEFICIARY FROM FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS TO TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS AND THE LIMITATION ON THE AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE A MEMBER OF A GROUP WHOSE GROUP COVERAGE IS TERMINATED MAY RECEIVE FROM TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS TO TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS, TO ELIMINATE A RESTRICTION ON GROUPS WHICH MAY NOT BE INSURED BY OUT-OF-STATE INSURERS, TO FURTHER DEFINE THE DEPENDENT CHILDREN WHOSE LIVES MAY BE INSURED UNDER GROUP POLICIES AND INCREASE THE LIMIT OF COVERAGE FROM FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS TO TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS, AND TO ELIMINATE A RESTRICTION ON THE AMOUNT OF LIFE INSURANCE COVERAGE A PERSON MAY RECEIVE UNDER A FRANCHISE OR WHOLESALE LIFE INSURANCE PLAN; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 38-65-110 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF OBTAINING LIFE INSURANCE WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF INSURABILITY WHEN NOTICE OF THE RIGHT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN AS REQUIRED; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 38-65-80 RELATING TO INAPPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER 65 OF TITLE 38 TO AN ASSOCIATION OF MEMBERS INVOLVED IN ONE HAZARDOUS OCCUPATION.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3316 -- Reps. Keyserling, Altman, K. Bailey, J. Brown, J.H. Burriss, T.M. Burriss, Carnell, Davenport, Elliott, Foxworth, Harvin, Lewis, Mappus, McElveen, Rudnick, Snow, Sturkie, Washington, Wells, White, Wilder, T. Rogers and Corning: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 10, CHAPTER 7, TITLE 12, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO INCOME TAX CREDITS, BY ADDING SECTIONS 12-7-1245, 12-7-1246, 12-7-1247, AND 12-7-1248 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR AN INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE EXPENDITURES AND PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PROCEDURES AND THE PROMULGATION OF REGULATIONS BY THE TAX COMMISSION AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3317 -- Reps. Whipper, Winstead, D. Martin and Foxworth: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 11, CHAPTER 3, TITLE 16, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES AGAINST A PERSON, BY ADDING SECTION 16-3-1080 SO AS TO MAKE IT A CRIME FOR AN OWNER OF A DWELLING UNIT TO INSTALL A SECURITY MEASURE WHICH WOULD HINDER THE EXIT OF A PERSON FROM THE UNIT IN CASE OF A FIRE AND REQUIRE AN OWNER OF A DWELLING UNIT TO PROVIDE EASY ACCESS TO ALL EXITS OF THE DWELLING UNIT OR BUILDING IN WHICH THE UNIT IS LOCATED AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3318 -- Rep. Day: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 2 AND 8 OF ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MUST BE ELECTED FOR TERMS OF FOUR INSTEAD OF TWO YEARS BEGINNING WITH THOSE MEMBERS ELECTED IN THE 1990 GENERAL ELECTION.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3319 -- Reps. J. Harris, J.H. Burriss, Keyserling, T. Rogers, Shelton and Corning: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 16, TITLE 12, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 21 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF ESTATE TAX WITH A CONTRIBUTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY TO A STATE AGENCY.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3320 -- Rep. Fair: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 61-13-287 SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE TRANSFER OF BEER, WINE, OR ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR TO PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE YEARS, PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS, AND PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3321 -- Reps. McEachin and Corning: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-3310, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES FOR PURPLE HEART RECIPIENTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO FEE MAY BE CHARGED FOR THESE SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

H. 3322 -- Reps. Edwards, D. Martin, White and Clyborne: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-13-190, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SPECIAL ELECTIONS TO FILL OFFICE VACANCIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR ELECTIONS TO BE HELD ON THE SAME DATE IF THEY ARE REQUIRED WITHIN A TWENTY-EIGHT-DAY PERIOD IN THE SAME COUNTY.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3323 -- Rep. Sharpe: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 3, TITLE 47, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DOGS AND OTHER DOMESTIC PETS, BY ADDING ARTICLE 11 SO AS TO REGULATE THE TRAINING, CARE, AND CUSTODY OF DANGEROUS DOGS AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS AND TO PROVIDE THAT MAGISTRATES HAVE JURISDICTION TO TRY CASES INVOLVING VIOLATIONS.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3324 -- Rep. Fair: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-1-150, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS OF THE VARIOUS SCHOOL LEVELS, SECTION 59-63-20, RELATING TO A PUPIL'S AGE OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE, AND SECTION 59-65-10, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO COMPULSORY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARENTS AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, SO AS TO ALLOW STUDENTS TO ENTER PUBLIC KINDERGARTEN IF THEY ARE FIVE YEARS OF AGE BEFORE SEPTEMBER SECOND INSTEAD OF BEFORE NOVEMBER SECOND AND TO PROHIBIT STUDENTS FROM ENTERING FIRST GRADE IN PUBLIC SCHOOL UNLESS THEY ARE SIX BEFORE SEPTEMBER SECOND INSTEAD OF NOVEMBER SECOND.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

H. 3325 -- Rep. Day: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 57-1-130 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO CONSTRUCT SPEED BUMPS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS ON ROADS WHICH THE DEPARTMENT IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

H. 3326 -- Rep. M.D. Burriss: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO INVITE THE SOUTH CAROLINA AIR NATIONAL GUARD FLAG TEAM TO PERFORM ITS PATRIOTIC FLAG CEREMONY ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1988, IN THE HALL OF THE HOUSE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE CHAPLAIN'S PRAYER.

Referred to Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.

H. 3327 -- Rep. Aydlette: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 57-11-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE STATE HIGHWAY FUND, SO AS TO REQUIRE INTEREST EARNED FROM THE FUND TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE FUND.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3328 -- Rep. Aydlette: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 11, TITLE 57, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO GENERAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE FINANCIAL MATTERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, BY ADDING SECTION 57-11-25 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO MORE THAN THIRTY-TWO MILLION DOLLARS MAY BE APPROPRIATED FROM THE STATE HIGHWAY FUND FOR THE OPERATION OF THE HIGHWAY PATROL AND PROVIDE THAT ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDING MUST BE APPROPRIATED FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF THE STATE.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3329 -- Rep. Kohn: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 13, TITLE 61, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING GENERALLY TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL LAWS, BY ADDING ARTICLE 6 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT PERSONS WHO HOLD A LICENSE TO SELL ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS, BEER, OR WINE FOR ON-OR OFF PREMISES CONSUMPTION, AND THE MANAGERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE ESTABLISHMENTS WHEREIN THESE BEVERAGES ARE SOLD, ARE LIABLE FOR CERTAIN DAMAGES IF THEY NEGLIGENTLY SELL OR FURNISH THESE BEVERAGES TO AN UNDERAGE OR INTOXICATED PERSON, AND TO REQUIRE HOLDERS OF THESE LICENSES TO FURNISH TO THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL COMMISSION PROOF OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN MEETING ANY LIABILITY IMPOSED ABOVE.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3330 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 2 IN TITLE 38, RELATING TO INSURANCE, SO AS TO PROVIDE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE INSURANCE LAW; TO AMEND SECTION 38-25-320, RELATING TO THE FINE FOR CONDUCTING UNAUTHORIZED INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THIS STATE, SO AS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM FINE FROM TEN TO FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS; TO AMEND SECTION 38-5-120, RELATING TO ACTS WHICH RESULT IN THE REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF AN INSURER'S CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY, SO AS TO INCLUDE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COMMISSION; TO AMEND SECTION 38-43-130, RELATING TO THE COMMISSIONER'S AUTHORITY TO REVOKE OR SUSPEND AGENTS' LICENSES, SO AS TO DELETE WILFULNESS AS AN ELEMENT OF A VIOLATION, TO INCREASE FROM ONE TO TWO YEARS THE MAXIMUM PERIOD OF A LICENSE SUSPENSION, AND TO REFERENCE THE GENERAL PENALTY PROVISIONS ADDED BY THIS ACT; TO AMEND SECTIONS 38-5-130, 38-7-80, 38-13-90, 38-13-150, 38-17-170, 38-15-330, 38-27-420, 38-29-100, 38-31-80, 38-37-930, 38-39-20, 38-39-40, 38-43-160, 38-43-190, 38-45-140, 38-45-150, 38-47-60, 38-47-70, 38-53-150, 38-53-340, 38-55-40, 38-55-60, 38-55-80, 38-55-340, 38-57-200, 38-59-30, 38-59-50, 38-63-10, 38-65-10, 38-65-20, 38-69-10, 38-69-20, 38-71-90, 38-71-220, AND 38-73-80, ALL RELATING TO THE INSURANCE LAW AND CONTAINING SEPARATE PENALTY PROVISIONS, SO AS TO DELETE THE EXISTING PENALTY PROVISIONS AND ADD REFERENCES TO THE GENERAL PENALTY PROVISIONS ADDED BY THIS ACT; AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 38-25-340, 38-25-350, 38-37-950, 38-37-960, 38-43-140, 38-43-150, 38-61-60, AND 38-73-100 RELATING TO THE INSURANCE LAW.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3331 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 9, CHAPTER 19, TITLE 38, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO OPERATIONS GENERALLY OF A DOMESTIC MUTUAL INSURER, BY ADDING SECTIONS 38-19-815 AND 38-19-825 SO AS TO DEFINE "BULK REINSURANCE AND ASSUMPTION", "MERGER", AND "CONVERSION OF A MUTUAL INSURER TO A STOCK INSURER", AND PROVIDE FOR A PROCEDURE FOR BULK REINSURANCE AND ASSUMPTION, MERGER, AND CONVERSION; TO AMEND SECTION 38-19-20, RELATING TO CONTRACTS ISSUED BY DOMESTIC MUTUAL INSURERS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE EMPLOYER WHOSE NAME IS ON THE MASTER CONTRACT IS A MEMBER OF THE INSURER WHEN THE CONTRACT IS A GROUP ANNUITY CONTRACT OR A CONTRACT OF GROUP INSURANCE AND THE HOLDER OF AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP ANNUITY CONTRACT OR AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP CONTRACT OF INSURANCE INSTEAD OF A HOLDER OF ONE OR MORE INSURANCE CONTRACTS ISSUED BY AN INSURER; TO AMEND SECTION 38-19-40, RELATING TO NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE ANNUAL MEETING OF MEMBERS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN BY A DOMESTIC MUTUAL INSURER, SO AS TO REQUIRE A PROCEDURE FOR CHANGING THE TIME INSTEAD OF THE DATE OF THE ANNUAL MEETING; TO AMEND SECTION 38-19-50, RELATING TO THE USE OF A PROXY BY A MEMBER OF A DOMESTIC MUTUAL INSURER, SO AS TO DELETE THE AUTHORITY OF A MEMBER OF THE INSURER TO GIVE HIS PROXY TO ANOTHER MEMBER, THE PROHIBITION OF AN OFFICER OF THE INSURER HOLDING OR VOTING THE PROXY OF ANY MEMBER, AND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH A PROXY IS NO LONGER VALID, TO PROVIDE WHEN THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PROXY IS EFFECTIVE, AND TO ADD CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH A MEMBER'S VOTE UPON A PROPOSAL MAY BE REGISTERED, PROVIDE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH A PROXY ONLY MAY BE USED; TO AMEND SECTION 38-19-60, RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF BUSINESS AT AN ANNUAL MEETING OF A DOMESTIC MUTUAL INSURER, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE UTILIZATION OF A PROXY; TO AMEND SECTION 38-19-610, RELATING TO THE BORROWING OF MONEY BY A DOMESTIC MUTUAL INSURER, SO AS TO DELETE THE MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE RATE OF EIGHT PERCENT A YEAR AT WHICH THE MONEY MAY BE BORROWED; TO AMEND SECTION 38-27-610, RELATING TO THE PRIORITY OF DISTRIBUTION OF CLAIMS FROM THE INSURER'S ESTATE, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISIONS IN CLASS 7 WHICH AUTHORIZE PAYMENTS TO MEMBERS OF DOMESTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES LIMITED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND CREATE A NEW CLASS 8 AUTHORIZING PAYMENTS TO MEMBERS OF DOMESTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES; AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 38-19-210 THROUGH 38-19-260 RELATING TO OPERATIONS GENERALLY OF DOMESTIC MUTUAL INSURERS, AND SECTIONS 38-19-810, 38-19-820, 38-19-830, 38-19-840, 38-19-850, 38-19-860, 38-19-870, 38-19-880, 38-19-890 RELATING TO CONVERSION OF REINSURANCE, LIQUIDATION, AND MERGER OF A DOMESTIC MUTUAL INSURER.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3332 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-71-190, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE INSURER'S RIGHT OF SUBROGATION IN POLICIES OF ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE, SO AS TO ALLOW THE CHIEF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER TO DISALLOW SUBROGATION IF, AFTER PETITION BY THE INSURED, HE DETERMINES THE SUBROGATION TO BE INEQUITABLE; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 38-71-335 SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE WRITING OF INDIVIDUAL OR FAMILY ACCIDENT, HEALTH, OR ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES WHICH ALLOW THE INSURER TO CANCEL THE POLICY ON A DATE OTHER THAN THE ANNIVERSARY OR PREMIUM DUE DATE AND POLICIES WHICH ARE OPTIONALLY RENEWABLE AND TO REQUIRE THIRTY-ONE DAYS' WRITTEN NOTICE OF NONRENEWAL; TO AMEND SECTION 38-71-340, RELATING TO MANDATORY PROVISIONS IN ACCIDENT, HEALTH, OR ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES, SO AS TO REVISE THE REQUIRED PROVISIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 38-71-370, RELATING TO OPTIONAL PROVISIONS IN LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES, SO AS TO REVISE THE REQUIRED PROVISIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 38-71-610, RELATING TO NOTICE OF PREMIUMS DUE FOR ACCIDENT OR HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES, SO AS TO REVISE A TERM; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 38-71-735 SO AS TO PROVIDE MANDATORY PROVISIONS FOR GROUP ACCIDENT, GROUP HEALTH, OR GROUP ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES; TO AMEND SECTION 38-71-810, RELATING TO READJUSTMENT OF PREMIUMS FOR GROUP ACCIDENT, GROUP HEALTH, OR GROUP ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES, SO AS TO CLARIFY TERMS; TO AMEND SECTION 38-71-1010, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF BLANKET ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE, SO AS TO EXPAND THE DEFINITION; TO AMEND SECTION 38-71-1110, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE IN A FRANCHISE PLAN, SO AS TO REVISE THE DEFINITION; TO AMEND SECTIONS 38-55-50 AND 38-71-200, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN INSUREDS OF THE SAME CLASS OR HAZARD, SO AS TO ALLOW STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 38-57-190, RELATING TO TYPES OF INSURANCE EXEMPT FROM RESTRICTIONS ON PREFERENCES, SO AS TO REVISE THE EXEMPT CATEGORIES; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 38-55-180 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE SAFEGUARDING OF PREMIUMS OF INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE; AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 38-71-130, 38-71-180, 38-71-380, 38-71-390, 38-71-400, 38-71-820, AND ARTICLE 7, CHAPTER 71 RELATING TO ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3333 -- Reps. McLellan, Sheheen, Dangerfield, Wilkins, J. Rogers, Toal, T.C. Alexander, Edwards, J.C. Johnson, Baxley, McTeer, Kohn, Short, Wilder, G. Bailey, Felder, McElveen, Holt, Tucker, Rhoad, Hodges, T.M. Burriss, McGinnis, McAbee, Helmly, Petty, McKay, Carnell, Bennett, McCain, Foster, Boan, L. Martin, McBride, Snow, Harvin, Winstead, T. Rogers, Cork and Corning: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 19, TITLE 12, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO LICENSE FEES OF CORPORATIONS, BY ADDING SECTION 12-19-95 SO AS TO PROVIDE A METHOD BY WHICH THE AMOUNT OF THE LICENSE FEE MUST BE MEASURED AND PROVIDE FOR THE DEFINITIONS OF "BANK", "BANK HOLDING COMPANY", "SUBSIDIARY", "ASSOCIATION", AND "SAVINGS AND LOAN HOLDING COMPANY".

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3334 -- Rep. Kirsh: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY ADDING RULE 9.6 SO AS TO REQUIRE AMENDMENTS CHANGING APPROPRIATIONS IN THE ANNUAL GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL TO STATE IN THE LEFT MARGIN THE TOTAL AMOUNT ADDED TO OR SUBTRACTED FROM THE REPORT OF THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE ON THE BILL AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE CLERK SHALL CAUSE THE MARGIN NOTES TO BE CHANGED TO REFLECT PRIOR AMENDMENTS TO THE SAME APPROPRIATION.

Referred to Committee on Rules.

H. 3335 -- Rep. J. Bradley: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-71-775 SO AS TO PROVIDE SPECIAL INSURANCE CONTINUATION PRIVILEGES FOR EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE RETIRED, ARE FIFTY-FIVE YEARS OF AGE OR OVER, AND HAVE PARTICIPATED IN A GROUP POLICY FOR TEN YEARS OR FOR THE LIFE OF A GROUP PLAN WITHIN A COMPANY, TO PROVIDE AN ENROLLMENT PERIOD FOR A RETIREE TO EXERCISE THE ABOVE PRIVILEGES, TO PROVIDE FOR RENEWED COVERAGE AFTER A GROUP PLAN IS DISCONTINUED AND A NEW PLAN IS INSTITUTED UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, TO MAKE IT A MISDEMEANOR TO COMMIT CERTAIN VIOLATIONS AND A FELONY TO COMMIT THE VIOLATIONS FOR A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT TIME, AND TO ADD THIS FELONY TO THE LIST OF CRIMES CLASSIFIED AS FELONIES BY SECTION 16-1-10.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3336 -- Rep. J. Bradley: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 37, TITLE 38, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE BY ADDING SECTION 38-37-145 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT EVERY AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY OR OTHER POLICY CONTAINING AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COVERAGE ON THE FACE OF THE POLICY MUST STATE THE COMPLETE NAME OF THE COMPANY ISSUING THE POLICY, ITS ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER AND THE NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF ITS RESIDENT INSURANCE ADJUSTOR.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3337 -- Rep. M.D. Burriss: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-2945, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO FELONY DUI, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ANY PERSON IN A VEHICLE WHICH CAUSES GREAT BODILY INJURY OR DEATH OF ANOTHER, WHO WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL, DRUGS, OR A COMBINATION OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS, IS GUILTY OF A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IF THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE CANNOT BE REASONABLY DETERMINED AND IT IS NOT SHOWN BY CLEAR PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THIS PERSON WAS NOT THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3338 -- Rep. Fair: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 61-13-875, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE OF BEER, WINE, OR ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR FOR ON-PREMISES CONSUMPTION ON A TWO OR MORE FOR THE PRICE OF ONE BASIS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE SECTION TO APPLY TO PERSONS WHO HOLD LICENSES AND PERMANENT PERMITS TO SELL THE BEVERAGES, TO PROHIBIT DISPENSING THE BEVERAGES FOR FREE, AND TO PROHIBIT SALE OF THE BEVERAGES AT LESS THAN THE REGULAR PRICE EXCEPT FROM FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. UNTIL EIGHT O'CLOCK P.M.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3339 -- Reps. Harvin, Baxley, J. Brown, J.H. Burriss, Foxworth, Huff, Mappus, McAbee, Rudnick, Snow, Wells, White and Corning: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 110 IN TITLE 59 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE SOUTH CAROLINA EDUCATION TRUST ACT; TO AMEND SECTION 12-7-435, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEDUCTIONS FROM SOUTH CAROLINA TAXABLE INCOME, SO AS TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION OF PAYMENTS PAID BY THE PURCHASER OF AN ADVANCE TUITION PAYMENT CONTRACT, TO REQUIRE THE SOUTH CAROLINA EDUCATION TRUST ESTABLISHED BY THIS ACT TO OBTAIN RULINGS FROM THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION BEFORE COMMENCING OPERATIONS AND TO PROVIDE FOR AN UNFAVORABLE RULING AND TO REPEAL THE CHAPTER ADDED BY THIS ACT IF NO ADVANCE TUITION PAYMENT CONTRACT IS ENTERED INTO BY THE TRUST BEFORE JULY 1, 1990.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3340 -- Reps. T.M. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, M.O. Alexander, P. Bradley, Clyborne, Cork, Corning, Foxworth, Hearn, J.C. Johnson, Kirsh, Mappus, McElveen, Sturkie, Waldrop and Wells: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 23-5-70 SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR MEMBERS OF THE STATE HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO SOLICIT OR ACCEPT TRANSPORTATION TO OR FROM COMMISSION MEETINGS FURNISHED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY PATROL, TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO SOLICIT OR ACCEPT TRANSPORTATION TO OR FROM SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OR COMMITTEE MEETINGS FURNISHED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY PATROL, AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3341 -- Reps. Whipper, Winstead, D. Martin, Washington and Foxworth: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 71, TITLE 38, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE, BY ADDING SECTION 38-71-230 SO AS TO REQUIRE PROVIDERS OF MEDICAL SERVICES TO FILE CLAIMS WITH AN INSURER BEFORE SUBMITTING THE CLAIM TO AN INSURED AND PROVIDE FOR A PENALTY.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3342 -- Reps. McLellan, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Alexander, Altman, Baxley, J. Brown, R. Brown, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Burriss, Carnell, Dangerfield, Davenport, Elliott, Felder, Gregory, Ferguson, J. Harris, P. Harris, Harvin, Haskins, Hodges, Kirsh, Koon, L. Martin, McAbee, McCain McElveen, McGinnis, J.W. McLeod, McTeer, Moss Neilson, Nesbitt, Nettles, Pearce, Pettigrew, Petty, Rice, T. Rogers, Rudnick, Snow, Sturkie, Toal, Tucker, Wells, Wilder, Winstead, Barfield and Corning: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 9-11-70, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE YEARS OF SERVICE REQUIRED FOR RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, SO AS TO REDUCE FROM THIRTY TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS THE YEARS OF SERVICE NECESSARY TO RETIRE AT ANY AGE WITHOUT PENALTY FOR MEMBERS RETIRING AFTER JUNE 30, 1988, AND TO DELETE PROVISIONS RELATING TO REDUCTION OF BENEFITS FOR MEMBERS WITH TWENTY-FIVE YEARS' SERVICE RETIRING BEFORE AGE FIFTY-FIVE.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3343 -- Reps. McCain, Baker, Baxley, J. Brown, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, Cork, Davenport, Foxworth, Harvin, Haskins, Limehouse, Mappus, McAbee, McEachin, Pettigrew, Snow, Sturkie, Wells, P. Bradley and Corning: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-7-435, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEDUCTIONS FROM SOUTH CAROLINA TAXABLE INCOME, SO AS TO ALLOW A DEDUCTION EQUAL TO SIXTY PERCENT OF NET CAPITAL GAINS.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3344 -- Rep. Ferguson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 5-15-70, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DUTIES OF A MUNICIPAL GOVERNING BODY TO ENACT APPROPRIATE ELECTION ORDINANCES FOR CONDUCTING MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IN NONPARTISAN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS HELD AFTER 1988, FILING A STATEMENT OF CANDIDACY WITH THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION COMMISSION IS THE ONLY METHOD FOR A CANDIDATE TO GET HIS NAME PLACED ON THE BALLOT AND TO ELIMINATE ALL REFERENCES TO THE PETITION METHOD OF CANDIDACY.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3345 -- Rep. Ferguson: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-3-1565 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH TO PROVIDE LONG-TERM COUNSELING SERVICES AT NO COST TO VICTIMS OF THE OFFENSE OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT AND TO REQUIRE THAT THE COUNSELING BE PROVIDED AT A LOCATION CONVENIENT TO THE VICTIM.

Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.

H. 3346 -- Reps. T.M. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, P. Bradley, Corning, Foxworth, Hearn, Mappus Sturkie and Wells: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 57-3-210, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE STATE HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, SO AS TO RECONSTITUTE THE COMMISSION TO CONSIST OF NINE MEMBERS, ONE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR FROM THE STATE AT LARGE TO SERVE AS CHAIRMAN, ONE MEMBER APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR FROM EACH OF THE SIX CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS, AND, EX OFFICIO, THE CHAIRMEN OF THE SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AND HOUSE EDUCATION AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE, TO PROVIDE THAT MEMBERS APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR MUST BE APPOINTED WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE FOR FOUR-YEAR TERMS, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE FILLING OF VACANCIES; TO AMEND SECTION 57-3-260, RELATING TO THE COMMISSION'S OFFICERS AND RULES, SO AS TO DELETE A REFERENCE TO THE SELECTION OF A CHAIRMAN; AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 57-3-215, 57-3-220, 57-3-230, AND 57-3-240 ALL RELATING TO THE COMMISSION.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

H. 3347 -- Reps. R. Brown, Lewis, Pearce, Keyserling, Williams, Rudnick and Mappus: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976 BY ADDING ARTICLE 50 TO CHAPTER 5 OF TITLE 56 SO AS TO REQUIRE OCCUPANTS OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO WEAR A PROPERLY FASTENED SAFETY BELT, TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

H. 3348 -- Rep. Simpson: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 101, TITLE 59, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO COLLEGES AND INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING BY ADDING SECTION 59-101-285 SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDUCING A STUDENT ATHLETE AT AN INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING IN THIS STATE TO ALLOW THAT PERSON TO BECOME A STUDENT'S AGENT, TO CAUSE, ENCOURAGE, OR INDUCE THE STUDENT TO VIOLATE ANY RULE OR REGULATION AFFECTING THE STUDENT'S ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETIC COMPETITION IN A SPORT IN WHICH THE PROSPECTIVE AGENT SEEKS TO REPRESENT THE STUDENT, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

H. 3349 -- Rep. Day: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-2650, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO NOTICE AND COLLECTION OF AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES ON MOTOR VEHICLES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR COLLECTION OF THE TAXES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3350 -- Rep. Moss: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 33-31-180, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO IMMUNITY FROM SUIT OF DIRECTORS, TRUSTEES, OR MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODIES OF CERTAIN NOT-FOR-PROFIT COOPERATIVES, CORPORATIONS, ASSOCIATIONS, AND ORGANIZATIONS, SO AS TO EXTEND THE IMMUNITY TO OFFICERS AND VOLUNTEERS OF THOSE NOT-FOR-PROFIT ENTITIES.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3351 -- Reps. Sheheen and Wilkins: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 14-27-60, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REIMBURSEMENT TO MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR PER DIEM, SUBSISTENCE, AND MILEAGE FOR MEETINGS ATTENDED BY THE MEMBERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW FOR MEMBERS OF STATE BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3352 -- Rep. Day: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 2 AND 8 OF ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MUST BE ELECTED FOR TERMS OF FOUR INSTEAD OF TWO YEARS BEGINNING WITH THOSE MEMBERS ELECTED IN THE 1992 GENERAL ELECTION AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE TERMS TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3353 -- Rep. Winstead: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 37-2-417 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT BEFORE A DELINQUENT CREDIT SALE ACCOUNT MAY BE TURNED OVER TO A COLLECTION AGENCY NOTICE THAT THE ACTION IS TO BE TAKEN MUST BE MAILED TO THE DEBTOR BY REGISTERED MAIL.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3354 -- Rep. Blackwell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-35-550, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO EXEMPT THE GROSS PROCEEDS OF THE SALE DERIVED BY A CUSTOM COMPUTER SOFTWARE PROGRAMMING BUSINESS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CUSTOM SOFTWARE PROGRAMS AND MAGNETIC MEDIA DATA TO ITS CUSTOMERS WHERE THE OBJECT OF THE TRANSACTION IS THE SALE OF CODED INFORMATION CUSTOM DESIGNED FOR THE CUSTOMER AND PRODUCED BY A BUSINESS LOCATED IN THIS STATE.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3355 -- Rep. Aydlette: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 56-5-6215 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEPOSIT OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE IN LIEU OF BOND IN TRAFFIC VIOLATION CASES AND TO PROVIDE AN IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3356 -- Reps. Waldrop, J. Bradley, J. Brown, R. Brown, Carnell, Chamblee, Davenport, Elliott, Felder, Ferguson, Harvin, Huff, McAbee, J.W. McLeod, Moss, White, Wilder, Winstead, Wells, Cole, Stoddard, P. Bradley, Rice, Lanford and Clyborne: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 9-11-60 AND 9-11-70, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CALCULATION OF RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AND YEARS OF SERVICE REQUIRED FOR RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, SO AS TO INCREASE FROM ONE AND THREE-FOURTHS TO TWO PERCENT THE FRACTION USED IN CALCULATING RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AND TO REDUCE FROM THIRTY TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS THE YEARS OF SERVICE NECESSARY TO RETIRE AT ANY AGE WITHOUT PENALTY, TO MAKE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT EFFECTIVE FOR MEMBERS RETIRING AFTER JUNE 30, 1988, TO DELETE PROVISIONS RELATING TO REDUCTION OF BENEFITS FOR MEMBERS WITH TWENTY-FIVE YEARS' SERVICE RETIRING BEFORE AGE FIFTY-FIVE, AND TO PROVIDE FOR INCREASES IN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS TO COVER THE ACTUARIAL COST OF THE ADDITIONAL BENEFITS.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3357 -- Reps. Kirsh, McTeer, Elliott and McLellan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-3-260, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AUTHORITY OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION TO CONTRACT FOR COMPUTER SERVICES WITH OTHER STATE AGENCIES, SO AS TO BROADEN THE CONTRACTING AUTHORITY TO INFORMATION RESOURCES OR OTHER RELATED SERVICES.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3358 -- Reps. Kirsh, McTeer, Elliott and McLellan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 12-21-780, 12-21-2120, AND 12-21-2550, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TAXES ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS, SOFT DRINKS, AND ADMISSIONS, SO AS TO ALLOW QUARTERLY INSTEAD OF MONTHLY REPORTS ON ACCOUNTS WITH LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS OF TAX LIABILITY MONTHLY.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3359 -- Reps. Kirsh, McTeer, Elliott and McLellan: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-54-35 SO AS TO ADOPT FOR STATE INCOME TAX PURPOSES THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE INNOCENT SPOUSE RULE.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3360 -- Reps. Kirsh, McTeer, Elliott and McLellan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-35-320, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE RETAIL LICENSE FEE, SO AS TO PROVIDE A TEMPORARY RETAIL LICENSE FOR TRANSIENT RETAILERS SELLING IN THIS STATE FOR NOT MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS AT A FEE OF FIFTY DOLLARS.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3361 -- Reps. Kirsh, McTeer, Elliott and McLellan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-35-570, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SALES TAX MONTHLY RETURNS AND PAYMENTS, SO AS TO PERMIT RETAILERS TO FILE EVERY TWENTY-EIGHT DAYS.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3362 -- Reps. Kirsh, McTeer, Elliott and McLellan: A BILL TO REPEAL SECTION 12-21-630, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE TAX ON PLAYING CARDS.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3363 -- Reps. Kirsh, McTeer, Elliott and McLellan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-35-550, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO EXTEND THE EXEMPTION FOR GASOLINE AND OTHER MOTOR FUELS TO ETHANOL BLENDS QUALIFYING FOR REDUCED MOTOR FUELS TAX DURING THE INCENTIVE PERIOD.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3364 -- Reps. Kirsh, McTeer, Elliott and McLellan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-970, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AD VALOREM TAX RETURNS REQUIRED TO BE FILED WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE RETURN AND PAYMENT OF TAXES WHEN SELLERS AND PURCHASERS HAVE DIFFERENT ACCOUNTING PERIODS.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3365 -- Reps. Kirsh, McTeer, Elliott and McLellan: A BILL TO REPEAL SECTION 61-13-560, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DECLARATION OF UNSTAMPED ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS AS CONTRABAND.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3366 -- Reps. Kirsh, McTeer, Elliott and McLellan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-7-1640, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING STATE INCOME TAX RETURNS, SO AS TO DELETE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO TENTATIVE RETURNS AND PARTIAL PAYMENTS.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3367 -- Reps. Kirsh, McTeer, Elliott and McLellan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-800, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO LIST PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF AD VALOREM TAXATION, SO AS TO INCLUDE REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE PENALTY PROVISION.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3368 -- Reps. Kirsh, McTeer, Elliott and McLellan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-54-40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PENALTIES AND OFFENSES UNDER THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF TAXES LEVIED AND ASSESSED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION, SO AS TO INCLUDE PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE EVASION OFFENSE.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3369 -- Reps. Kirsh, McTeer, Elliott and McLellan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-21-1010, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE BEER AND WINE LICENSE TAX, SO AS TO EXCLUDE FROM THE DEFINITION OF BEER AND WINE BEVERAGES WITH AN ALCOHOL CONTENT OF LESS THAN ONE-HALF PERCENT BY WEIGHT; TO AMEND SECTION 12-21-1730, RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION OF THE SOFT DRINK LICENSE TAX, SO AS TO INCLUDE AS SOFT DRINKS BEER AND WINE WITH AN ALCOHOL CONTENT OF ONE-HALF PERCENT OR LESS BY WEIGHT; AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-21-1860, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE SOFT DRINK LICENSE TAX, SO AS TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE DEFINITION BEER AND WINE WITH AN ALCOHOL CONTENT OF ONE-HALF PERCENT OR LESS BY WEIGHT.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3370 -- Reps. Kirsh, McTeer, Elliott and McLellan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-7-2250, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PROVISION THAT THE REFUND OF AN INCOME TAX OVERPAYMENT OF A DECEASED TAXPAYER IS THE SOLE AND SEPARATE PROPERTY OF THE TAXPAYER'S SURVIVING SPOUSE IF THE OVERPAYMENT IS THREE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS OR LESS, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SECTION THAT THE REFUND BE THREE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS OR LESS.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3371 -- Reps. Kirsh, McTeer, Elliott and McLellan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-35-1540, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SHARING OF SALES AND USE TAX RETURNS AND RECORDS WITH OTHER STATES OF THE UNITED STATES, SO AS TO PERMIT RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER STATES TO OBTAIN RECORDS OF SALES OR PURCHASE OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS OR MORE AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 12-35-1545 SO AS TO REQUIRE REPORTING TO THE TAX COMMISSION OF SALES OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS OR MORE NOT SUBJECT TO SALES OR USE TAX IN THIS STATE.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3372 -- Rep. Ferguson: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-63-280 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO STUDENT MAY BE DISCIPLINED FOR FIGHTING UNLESS THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY DETERMINES THAT THE STUDENT INITIATED OR PROVOKED THE FIGHT.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

H. 3373 -- Rep. Kirsh: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-910, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO KIDNAPPING, SO AS TO PROVIDE A MANDATORY MINIMUM TERM OF IMPRISONMENT OF TWENTY YEARS WHEN A PERSON IS SENTENCED TO TWO OR MORE CONSECUTIVE LIFE IMPRISONMENT TERMS FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION; AND TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-610, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT A PORTION OF A SENTENCE IS REQUIRED TO BE SERVED AS A PREREQUISITE TO PAROLE, SO AS TO EXCLUDE THE OFFENSE OF KIDNAPPING FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION WHEN A PERSON IS SENTENCED TO TWO OR MORE CONSECUTIVE LIFE IMPRISONMENT TERMS.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3374 -- Rep. Elliott: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 14-7-840, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM JURY SERVICE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY, OR TECHNICAL SCHOOL STUDENTS TAKING AT LEAST TWELVE CREDIT HOURS AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS TAKING AT LEAST FOUR CREDIT HOURS ARE EXEMPT, AND TO DELETE AN OBSOLETE PROVISION IN THE SECTION.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3375 -- Rep. Aydlette: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 1-1-15 SO AS TO VEST IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TITLE TO COASTAL LANDS AND WATERS NOT SPECIFICALLY DEEDED TO ANY PERSON OR CLAIMED BY THE UNITED STATES AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF ITS USE BY THE STATE ONLY.

Referred to Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

H. 3376 -- Rep. Aydlette: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-37-155, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT LIABILITY FOR THE OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE IS TRANSFERRED FROM THE OWNER TO THE NEW OWNER WHEN A BILL OF SALE IS GIVEN TO THE NEW OWNER AND HE TAKES POSSESSION OF THE VEHICLE.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3377 -- Rep. Ferguson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-57-100, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO LICENSE REQUIREMENTS FOR REAL ESTATE SALESMEN AND BROKERS, SO AS TO DELETE THE ONE-YEAR WAITING PERIOD BEFORE TAKING THE FINAL SALES EXAMINATION.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3378 -- Reps. Keyserling and M.D. Burriss: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 48-47-170, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES FOR PURPOSES OF THE SOUTHEASTERN RADIOACTIVE WASTE COMPACT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO HOST STATE IS REQUIRED TO OPERATE A REGIONAL DISPOSAL FACILITY FOR LONGER THAN TWENTY YEARS OR TO DISPOSE OF MORE THAN THIRTY-TWO MILLION CUBIC FEET OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST; TO AMEND SECTION 48-47-280, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WITHDRAWING FROM THE COMPACT, SO AS TO QUALIFY THE RIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL AND FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR WITHDRAWAL; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 48-47-285 SO AS TO ALLOW WITHDRAWAL BY A STATE MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE SECOND HOST STATE'S DISPOSAL FACILITY ONLY WITH THE UNANIMOUS APPROVAL OF THE SOUTHEAST INTERSTATE LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION AND THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE BARNWELL COUNTY DISPOSAL FACILITY IS CONSIDERED THE FIRST HOST STATE DISPOSAL FACILITY.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3379 -- Rep. Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-7-2240, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO INCOME TAX REFUNDS AND THE RETENTION OF REFUNDS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT UPON REQUEST FROM AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, THE TAX COMMISSION SHALL SEND TO IT THE HOME ADDRESS, CORRECTED SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, OR ADDITIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, IF MORE THAN ONE IS USED, OF ANY TAXPAYER WHOSE NAME HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION BY THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION FOR DEFAULTING ON AN EDUCATIONAL LOAN.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3380 -- Reps. Wilkins, Huff, Hayes, McElveen and Limehouse: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 29-3-50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO MORTGAGES FOR FUTURE ADVANCES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUPERIORITY OF THE LIEN OF A PERSON WHO HAS FURNISHED LABOR, SERVICES, OR MATERIAL IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO REAL PROPERTY AND TO AMEND SECTION 29-5-70, RELATING TO MECHANICS' LIENS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR UNENFORCEABLE LIENS CLAIMED BY ANY MECHANIC OR MATERIALMAN FURNISHING LABOR, SERVICES, OR MATERIAL AND PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3381 -- Reps. Wilkins, Corning, Huff, Clyborne, Gentry and Toal: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 33-55-210, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL LIABILITY OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS WHEN PROVIDING FREE AND VOLUNTARY MEDICAL SERVICES AT HOSPITALS AND CERTAIN OTHER LOCATIONS, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THESE SERVICES BE PROVIDED AT HOSPITALS OR OTHER SPECIFIED LOCATIONS IN ORDER FOR THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER TO BE SO IMMUNE FROM CIVIL LIABILITY.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3382 -- Rep. P. Bradley: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 43-33-20, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO RIGHTS OF BLIND AND OTHER PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSONS TO USE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ACCOMMODATIONS, SO AS TO ADD SCHOOLS, COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

H. 3383 -- Rep. Huff: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-29-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE TRANSPORTATION AND HANDLING OF HUMAN REMAINS INFECTED BY A DANGEROUS, CONTAGIOUS, OR INFECTIOUS DISEASE, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE PERSON OR ENTITY HAVING POSSESSION OF MEDICAL RECORDS ACKNOWLEDGING AND INDICATING AN INFECTIOUS DISEASE, INSTEAD OF THE HUMAN REMAINS, TO INFORM ANY FUNERAL DIRECTOR, AMBULANCE DRIVER, OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY WHO IS TO TRANSPORT THE REMAINS THAT THEY ARE INFECTED BY A DANGEROUS, CONTAGIOUS, OR INFECTIOUS DISEASE PRIOR TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE REMAINS KNOWN TO BE INFECTED BY THESE DISEASES INTO, THROUGH, OR OUT OF THIS STATE OR ANY MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY WITHIN THIS STATE.

Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.

H. 3384 -- Rep. Kirsh: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 75, TITLE 15, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SUITS INVOLVING MISCELLANEOUS ACTS OF WRONGFUL CONDUCT, BY ADDING SECTION 15-75-40 SO AS TO CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST SHOPLIFTERS.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3385 -- Reps. Gregory, Davenport, Klapman, McGinnis, Rudnick, Washington, Winstead, Kirsh, Wells, J. Brown, J. Bradley, Waldrop, Toal, Keyserling, Dangerfield, L. Martin, Day, McElveen and Elliott: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-140, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PROHIBITING DEER HUNTING WITHIN THREE HUNDRED YARDS OF A RESIDENCE ON GAME MANAGEMENT LANDS, SO AS TO PROHIBIT DEER HUNTING WITHIN THREE HUNDRED YARDS OF ANY RESIDENCE.

Referred to Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

H. 3386 -- Rep. Aydlette: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE INTERSTATE COOPERATION COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO SPONSOR LEGISLATION TO CREATE A COMPACT FOR SOUTHEASTERN STATES TO PROVIDE FOR THE COLLECTION OF BAD CHECKS ISSUED BY NONRESIDENTS.

Referred to Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.

H. 3387 -- Rep. Aydlette: A BILL TO PROVIDE THAT A COMPANY WHICH SELLS A LIST OF ITS ACCOUNT HOLDERS TO ANOTHER COMPANY IS SECONDARILY LIABLE FOR WARRANTY CLAIMS MADE AGAINST THE PURCHASING COMPANY BY A CUSTOMER OBTAINED FROM THE ACCOUNT HOLDER OF THE SELLING COMPANY.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3388 -- Rep. Aydlette: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO PASS APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION PROVIDING FOR RECOGNITION BY THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA'S INDIAN TRIBES.

Referred to Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.

H. 3389 -- Rep. Aydlette: A BILL TO PROVIDE THAT AN INSURANCE COMPANY MAY NOT USE LOSS RESERVES TO DETERMINE THE PROFITABILITY OF ITS AGENTS.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3390 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-79-270, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO APPEALING ACTIONS OF THE JOINT UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR WHO MAY APPEAL TO THE INSURANCE COMMISSION AND CHANGE THE TIME WHEN THE APPEAL MAY BEGIN.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3391 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-31-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS IN THE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION ACT, SO AS TO REVISE THE DEFINITIONS; SECTION 38-31-30, RELATING TO APPLICATION OF THE ACT, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR EXCEPTIONS; SECTION 38-31-40, RELATING TO THE CREATION OF AND MEMBERSHIP IN THE ASSOCIATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR AN ADDITIONAL ACCOUNT; SECTION 38-31-60, RELATING TO THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ASSOCIATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR NEW DUTIES; SECTION 38-31-100, RELATING TO EXHAUSTING RIGHTS UNDER OTHER POLICIES AND CLAIMS RECOVERABLE FROM MORE THAN ONE ASSOCIATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A CLAIM UNDER A GOVERNMENTAL INSURANCE OR GUARANTY PROGRAM, CLAIM HELD BY AN INSURER, REINSURER, INSURANCE POOL, OR UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION, AND CLAIM AGAINST AN INSURED UNDER A POLICY ISSUED BY AN INSOLVENT INSURER; SECTION 38-31-110, RELATING TO DETECTION AND PREVENTION OF INSURER INSOLVENCIES, SO AS TO REVISE THE DUTIES OF THE ASSOCIATION'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER; SECTION 38-31-150, RELATING TO IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY FOR ACTION UNDER THIS ACT, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR IMMUNITY FROM ANY OMISSION; AND SECTION 38-31-160, RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING INSOLVENT INSURERS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR EXTENSION OF THE PERIOD OF TIME TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 38-31-180 RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3392 -- Reps. Kirsh, McTeer, Elliott and McLellan: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 51 OF TITLE 12 OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE COLLECTION OF PROPERTY TAXES, BY ADDING SECTIONS 12-51-15, 12-51-180, 12-51-190, 12-51-200, 12-51-210, 12-51-220, 12-51-230, 12-51-240, 12-51-250, 12-51-260, 12-51-270, 12-51-280, AND 12-51-290 SO AS TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS, TO AUTHORIZE THE DELINQUENT TAX COLLECTOR TO EMPLOY OR APPOINT OTHERS TO ASSIST IN THE COLLECTION OF TAXES, TO PROVIDE A FORM FOR TAX EXECUTIONS, TO DEFINE THE DUTIES OF THE DELINQUENT TAX COLLECTOR, TO AUTHORIZE THE SALE OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHOUT REFERRING TO HEIRS, THE ESTATE, OR SUCCESSORS OF A DECEASED TAXPAYER OR A TAXPAYER NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE, TO ALLOW A DEFAULTING TAXPAYER TO HAVE THE TAX SALE SUSPENDED IF HE OFFERS SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS PAID THE TAXES OR THAT THE TAXES HAVE BEEN IMPROPERLY ASSESSED AND WITHIN TWENTY DAYS TAKES ACTION PROVIDED BY LAW TO CORRECT THE ASSESSMENT AND PROSECUTE THE ACTION TO A SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION, PROVIDE FOR CASES WHERE BIDS AT A TAX SALE DO NOT EQUAL TAXES, ASSESSMENTS, PENALTIES, AND COSTS, AND TO ESTABLISH A FIRST LIEN IN FAVOR OF A TAX SALE PURCHASER FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE AND THE VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS IF THE PURCHASER IS DISPOSSESSED BECAUSE OF A DEFECTIVE TITLE; TO AMEND SECTION 12-47-70, RELATING TO ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF INCORRECT PROPERTY TAXES, SO AS TO INCREASE TO FIVE YEARS THE PERIOD DURING WHICH A CLAIM FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND MAY BE MADE; TO AMEND SECTION 12-51-40, RELATING TO THE DUTIES OF THE DELINQUENT TAX COLLECTOR, SO AS TO REQUIRE PAYMENT OF DELINQUENT TAXES BY THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE LAST BUSINESS DAY BEFORE THE DAY OF THE SALE; TO AMEND SECTIONS 12-51-50 AND 12-51-60, RELATING TO THE DUTIES OF THE DELINQUENT TAX COLLECTOR WITH RESPECT TO TAX SALES, SO AS TO MAKE GRAMMATICAL CHANGES AND DELETE UNNECESSARY LANGUAGE; TO AMEND SECTION 12-51-70, RELATING TO DEFAULTING BIDDERS AT TAX SALES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A DEFAULTING BIDDER IS LIABLE FOR THE COSTS OF ADVERTISING THE PROPERTY AND A PENALTY EQUAL TO TEN PERCENT OF THE BID AND TO MAKE THE AMOUNT OF THE COSTS AND PENALTY A FIRST LIEN ON ALL PROPERTY OF THE DEFAULTING BIDDER; TO AMEND SECTION 12-51-80, RELATING TO THE DUTIES OF THE TREASURER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROCEEDS OF TAX SALES, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE TREASURER TO INVEST THE PROCEEDS UNTIL CLAIMED AND DISTRIBUTED; TO AMEND SECTION 12-51-100, RELATING TO REDEMPTION OF PROPERTY, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR PROOF OF PAYMENTS WHEN THE TAX SALE RECEIPT IS LOST OR DESTROYED; TO AMEND SECTION 12-51-170, RELATING TO CONTRACTING FOR THE COLLECTION OF MUNICIPAL TAXES, SO AS TO CONFORM THE LANGUAGE TO OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; TO REDESIGNATE SECTION 12-45-70, RELATING TO PROPERTY TAX DUE DATES, AS SECTION 12-51-25 AND INCORPORATE IN IT THE DEFINITIONS ADDED BY THIS ACT, AND TO REDESIGNATE SECTION 12-45-180, RELATING TO PENALTIES, AS SECTION 12-51-35, AND TO PROVIDE FOR ALTERNATE DUE DATES WHEN DUE DATES FALL ON HOLIDAYS OR WEEKENDS.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3393 -- Reps. Wilkins, Hayes, J.W. Johnson and Fair: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-2950, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO IMPLIED CONSENT TO TESTS TO DETERMINE THE ALCOHOLIC OR DRUG CONTENT OF BLOOD, SO AS TO DEFINE PERSONS WHO ARE PERMITTED TO TAKE BLOOD AND URINE SAMPLES INSTEAD OF ADMINISTERING TESTS TO DETERMINE THE PRESENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS OR A COMBINATION OF THEM IN THE SYSTEMS OF PERSONS ARRESTED FOR DUI.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3394 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 5, CHAPTER 75, TITLE 38, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO WINDSTORM AND HAIL INSURANCE, BY ADDING SECTION 38-75-385 SO AS TO PROVIDE IMMUNITY FOR ANY PRIVATE INSURER WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA WINDSTORM AND HAIL UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION, AGENT, EMPLOYEE, ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD,OF DIRECTORS, OR THE COMMISSIONER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVES FOR ANY ACT OR OMISSION IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS POWERS OR DUTIES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE; AND TO AMEND SECTION 38-75-310, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS USED REGARDING WINDSTORM AND HAIL INSURANCE, SO AS TO REDEFINE "COASTAL AREA" AND EXTEND AREAS COVERED UNDER THE DEFINITION.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3395 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-73-1100, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DETERMINATION OF EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE RATES BY THE CHIEF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE HIM TO ORDER A REFUND OF PREMIUMS WHERE A DETERMINATION THAT EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE PROFITS HAVE BEEN REALIZED; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 38-73-465 RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHIEF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER TO ORDER RATES OF INDIVIDUAL INSURERS TO BE REVISED AND EXCESSIVE BENEFITS REBATED UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3396 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 38-79-110, 38-79-120, AND 38-79-250, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LIABILITY JOINT UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION, SO AS TO EXCLUDE HOMEOWNERS AND FARMOWNERS LIABILITY FROM NET DIRECT PREMIUMS OF THE ASSOCIATION.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3397 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 11, CHAPTER 75, TITLE 38, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TITLE INSURANCE, BY ADDING SECTIONS 38-75-905 AND 38-75-920 THROUGH 38-75-1000 SO AS TO REGULATE MORE STRINGENTLY THE TITLE INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THIS STATE.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3398 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO REPEAL SECTION 38-57-190, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST GROUP PROPERTY, MARINE, CASUALTY, OR SURETY INSURANCE.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3399 -- Reps. Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-53-170, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO UNLAWFUL ACTS REGARDING BAIL BONDSMEN AND RUNNERS, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION THAT LOITERING IN OR ABOUT A MAGISTRATE'S OFFICE OR ANY PLACE WHERE PRISONERS ARE CONFINED IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF SOLICITING, TO PROVIDE THAT JUDICIAL OFFICERS, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, AND JAILERS HAVE FULL RESPONSIBILITY, POWER, AND AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 38-53-170, AND TO REQUIRE THAT ANY ACTION TAKEN PURSUANT TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 38-53-170 RESULTING IN A CONVICTION, GUILTY PLEA, OR PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE MUST BE REPORTED TO THE CHIEF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3400 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A Bill TO AMEND TITLE 38, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO INSURANCE, BY ADDING CHAPTER 83 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION AND TAXATION OF RISK RETENTION GROUPS AND PURCHASING GROUPS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE FEDERAL LIABILITY RISK RETENTION ACT OF 1986, INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN PENALTIES.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3401 -- Reps. Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-63-220, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE INCONTESTABILITY OF INDIVIDUAL LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES AND EXCEPTIONS THERETO, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE REQUIRED CONTENTS OF THESE POLICIES; TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 63, TITLE 38, RELATING TO INDIVIDUAL LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES, BY ADDING SECTION 38-63-60 SO AS TO DEFINE WHAT CONSTITUTES "INDUSTRIAL LIFE INSURANCE" AND TO PROVIDE THAT NO POLICY OF LIFE INSURANCE DELIVERED OR ISSUED FOR DELIVERY IN SOUTH CAROLINA MAY USE INDUSTRIAL MORTALITY TABLES UNLESS THE POLICY IS AN INDUSTRIAL LIFE INSURANCE POLICY; TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 63, TITLE 38, RELATING TO INDIVIDUAL LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES, BY ADDING SECTION 38-63-80 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL LIFE INSURANCE POLICY PROVIDES FOR PAYMENT OF ITS PROCEEDS IN A LUMP SUM UPON THE DEATH OF THE INSURED AND THE INSURER FAILS TO PAY THE PROCEEDS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF SUBMISSION OF PROOF OF DEATH, THE PAYMENT SHALL INCLUDE INTEREST AT THE LEGAL RATE OF INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF DEATH OF THE INSURED UNTIL THE DATE THE CLAIM IS PAID; TO AMEND ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 63, TITLE 38, RELATING TO INDIVIDUAL LIFE INSURANCE, BY ADDING SECTION 38-63-225 SO AS TO REGULATE THE USE OF CERTAIN SUICIDE AND DEATH EXCLUSIONS AND RESTRICTIONS IN THESE POLICIES; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 38-63-230 RELATING TO LIMITATIONS ON PROCEEDINGS TO CONTEST LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3402 -- Reps. Wilkins, J.W. Johnson, Fair, H. Brown, Ferguson, Arthur, Tucker and Nettles: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 16-1-10, AS AMENDED, 16-1-20, 16-3-210, 16-3-430, 16-3-730, 16-11-617, 16-5-10, 16-7-170, 16-9-320, 16-11-20, 16-11-125, 16-11-170, 16-11-510, 16-11-520, 16-11-560, 16-11-570, 16-13-110, 16-13-160, 16-13-180, 16-13-190, 16-13-200, 16-13-250, 16-13-260, 16-13-290, 16-13-320, 16-13-385, 16-15-130, 16-15-250, 16-17-410, 16-17-430, 16-21-10, 16-21-40, 16-21-60, 16-21-80, 16-21-130, 16-21-140, 16-23-260, 16-23-440, 17-25-20, AND 17-25-30, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CRIMES, SO AS TO REDEFINE "FELONY" AND "MISDEMEANOR", TO DESIGNATE NUMEROUS CRIMES STATUTORILY DESIGNATED "MISDEMEANORS" AS "FELONIES", TO ESTABLISH THE PENALTIES FOR CRIMES NOT STATUTORILY DESIGNATED AS FELONIES OR MISDEMEANORS, TO DELETE THE CRIMES UNNECESSARILY LISTED IN SECTION 16-1-10, TO REDUCE THE SENTENCE FOR CONVICTION OF LYNCHING IN THE FIRST DEGREE AND DUELING FROM DEATH TO NOT LESS THAN THREE MONTHS TO NOT MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS, AND TO PROVIDE THAT CONVICTIONS OF CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA OR RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS ARE FELONIES INSTEAD OF MISDEMEANORS; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTIONS 16-3-621 AND 16-13-16 SO AS TO DEFINE THE FELONY OF ASSAULT AND BATTERY OF A HIGH AND AGGRAVATED NATURE AND THE FELONY OF GRAND LARCENY; AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 16-1-15, 16-1-30, 16-3-30, AND 16-3-40 OF THE 1976 CODE, SECTION 6 OF ACT 168 OF 1987, AND SECTION 8 OF ACT 16 OF 1987 RELATING TO CRIMES.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3403 -- Rep. J. Bradley: A BILL TO REPEAL SECTION 50-17-56, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REGULATION AND SALE OF SPOTTED SEA TROUT AND RED DRUM.

Referred to Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

H. 3404 -- Rep. J. Bradley: A BILL TO REPEAL SECTION 50-17-115, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF VARIOUS NETS AND SEINES IN THE WATERS OF THIS STATE AND TO REENACT SECTIONS 50-13-715, 50-17-1035, 50-17-1040, 50-17-1061, AND 50-17-1066, RELATING TO GILL NETS, ANCHOR NETS, OR SEINES.

Referred to Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

H. 3405 -- Rep. Baker: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-7-1250, SO AS TO ALLOW A STATE CORPORATE INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION OR IMPROVEMENT, TO LIMIT THE CREDIT TO FIFTY PERCENT OF THE EXPENSES, NOT TO EXCEED FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS, TO ALLOW A THREE-YEAR CARRY FORWARD OF UNUSED CREDIT, AND TO DEFINE INFRASTRUCTURE AS SEWER LINES, WATER LINES, RELATED FACILITIES, AND ROADS NOT FOR THE TAXPAYER'S EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT, BUILT TO APPROPRIATE STANDARDS, AND DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3406 -- Reps. Mappus, Corning, R. Brown, Keyserling, Snow, Elliott, Baxley, J.H. Burriss and J. Harris: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 8-15-70 SO AS TO REQUIRE ALL PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES TO WEAR SAFETY BELTS WHILE THEY ARE OCCUPANTS OF A MOTOR VEHICLE INSURED BY THE INSURANCE RESERVE FUND IF THE VEHICLE IS EQUIPPED WITH SAFETY BELTS AND TO REQUIRE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS OR PROCEDURES WHICH INCLUDE ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

H. 3407 -- Reps. Foxworth, Pearce, Corning, McKay, Davenport, T.M. Burriss, Harvin, Sharpe, Snow, J. Bradley, Elliott, Limehouse and Keyserling: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-1-420, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE LENGTH OF THE SCHOOL TERM, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO TERM MAY BEGIN EARLIER THAN THE DAY FOLLOWING LABOR DAY.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

H. 3408 -- Reps. Blackwell, P. Harris and Waldrop: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 31-3-140, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE HOUSING ASSISTANCE TO THE BENEFICIARY CLASSES AND PERSONS OVER SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OF AGE OR INCAPABLE OF FULLY CARING FOR THEMSELVES.

Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.

H. 3409 -- Rep. Beasley: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 37-4-103, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF "CONSUMER CREDIT INSURANCE", SO AS TO EXCLUDE FROM THE DEFINITION INSURANCE PROVIDED IN RELATION TO A CREDIT TRANSACTION IN WHICH A PAYMENT IS SCHEDULED MORE THAN FIFTEEN YEARS AFTER THE EXTENSION OF CREDIT AND THE DEBT IS SECURED BY REAL ESTATE.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3410 -- Reps. Taylor and Corning: A BILL TO ESTABLISH GUIDELINES FOR THE STATE IN CONDUCTING OR IN SUPERVISING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY AND THE APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOLLOWING SUCH A STUDY FOR PROPOSED MINING OPERATIONS OR RELATED ACTIVITY WHENEVER THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT OR TO SUPERVISE SUCH A STUDY IS DELEGATED BY THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OR BY ANY OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY OR INSTRUMENTALITY PURSUANT TO FEDERAL STATUTE OR REGULATION.

Referred to Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

H. 3411 -- Reps. J. Bradley, M.O. Alexander, J.W. McLeod, Neilson, G. Bailey and Kohn: A BILL TO REPEAL ITEM (14) OF SECTION 38-77-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF "UNDERINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE" FOR PURPOSES OF THE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE LAWS OF THIS STATE.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3412 -- Reps. M.O. Alexander, Blackwell, L. Phillips, T.C. Alexander and Mattos: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-43-300, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO NOTICE REQUIREMENTS AND APPEAL PROCEDURES FOR PROPERTY TAX REASSESSMENTS, SO AS TO REQUIRE REASSESSMENT NOTICES TO BE MAILED TO TAXPAYERS ON OR BEFORE THE THIRD MONDAY IN JUNE OF THE REASSESSMENT YEAR AND TO REQUIRE THE NOTICE TO CONTAIN BOTH THE PRIOR MARKET VALUE, THE MARKET VALUE FOLLOWING REASSESSMENT, THE PERCENTAGE CHANGES AND LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY, AND TO REQUIRE THE TAX COMMISSION TO PRESCRIBE A STANDARD REASSESSMENT FORM DESIGNED TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION IN AN EASILY UNDERSTOOD MANNER; AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-43-210, RELATING TO UNIFORM ASSESSMENTS FOR PURPOSES OF PROPERTY TAXATION, SO AS TO REQUIRE ALL REAL PROPERTY IN A COUNTY TO BE REASSESSED IN ANY REASSESSMENT PROGRAM.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3413 -- Rep. Taylor: A BILL TO LEVY A TAX UPON THE SEVERANCE OF PRECIOUS METALS, PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT AND COLLECTION OF THE TAX, PROVIDE FOR THE PROMULGATION OF REGULATIONS BY THE TAX COMMISSION, REQUIRE EVERY PERSON SUBJECT TO THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS ACT TO POST AN ANNUAL SURETY BOND, ESTABLISH A SPECIAL FUND KNOWN AS THE PALMETTO STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FUND, REQUIRE STATE TAX AND BOND RECEIPTS UNDER THIS ACT TO BE REMITTED TO THE STATE TREASURER AND DEPOSITED BY HIM IN THE FUND, PROVIDE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FUND AND FOR THE USE OF THE FUND'S PROCEEDS, REQUIRE THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPLICATIONS FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF THE FUND'S PROCEEDS, PROVIDE FOR THE PROMULGATION OF REGULATIONS BY THE BOARD, PROVIDE THAT THIS ACT DOES NOT ABROGATE OR DIMINISH ANY OTHERWISE APPLICABLE CIVIL LIABILITY, PROVIDE THAT THIS ACT DOES NOT RELIEVE CRIMINAL LIABILITY, AND PROVIDE THAT THE TAX AND THE BOND REQUIRED HEREUNDER ARE IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER APPLICABLE TAX, FEE, OR BOND IMPOSED OR PROVIDED FOR BY THE LAWS OF THIS STATE.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3414 -- Reps. P. Harris, Blackwell and Waldrop: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-7-1235, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE STATE INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR PAYMENTS BY THE TAXPAYER TO INSTITUTIONS PROVIDING SKILLED OR INTERMEDIATE CARE, SO AS TO EXTEND THE CREDIT TO PAYMENTS FOR IN-HOME OR COMMUNITY CARE AT THE SKILLED OR INTERMEDIATE CARE LEVEL AS CERTIFIED BY A LICENSED PHYSICIAN.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3415 -- Rep. Wells: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 4-9-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF COUNTY COUNCILS, SO AS TO ALLOW COUNTY COUNCILS TO ENACT ORDINANCES REGULATING NOISE IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND STRUCTURES AND PROVIDE FOR FINES OF NOT MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR VIOLATIONS.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3416 -- Reps. J. Bradley, J.W. McLeod, M.O. Alexander and Neilson: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 77, TITLE 38, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE, BY ADDING SECTION 38-77-45 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO USED MOTOR VEHICLE PARTS OR MOTOR VEHICLE PARTS OTHER THAN THOSE OF THE ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER MAY BE USED TO REPAIR A MOTOR VEHICLE AS A RESULT OF AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT WHERE THE COST OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE IS BEING PAID BY THE INSURER OF THE AT-FAULT PARTY, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEING REPAIRED.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3417 -- Reps. J. Bradley, G. Bailey, J.W. McLeod, Kohn, M.O. Alexander and Neilson: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 77, TITLE 38, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE, BY ADDING SECTION 38-77-35 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT WHERE AN INSURANCE COMPANY, AS A RESULT OF AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT, REQUIRES A RELEASE FROM AN INJURED PARTY FOR PROPERTY DAMAGES AND RELATED EXPENSES, THE RELEASE MUST BE LIMITED TO PROPERTY DAMAGE ITEMS ONLY AND MAY NOT BE A FULL RELEASE AS TO ALL CLAIMS OF THE INJURED PARTY AGAINST THE INSURED COVERED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3418 -- Reps. Edwards, D. Martin, White and Clyborne: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 5-15-125 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A RUNOFF ELECTION TO BREAK TIES IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND TO POSTPONE SUBSEQUENT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS IF THERE IS A TIE-BREAKER RUNOFF ELECTION; TO ADD ARTICLE 19 IN CHAPTER 13 OF TITLE 7, RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR TIE-BREAKING GENERAL, SPECIAL, AND PRIMARY ELECTIONS; TO AMEND SECTIONS 7-13-50 AND 7-13-1170, RELATING RESPECTIVELY TO RUNOFF PRIMARY ELECTIONS AND CASES WHERE THE GOVERNOR ORDERS NEW ELECTIONS, SO AS TO DELETE PROVISIONS RELATING TO TIE ELECTIONS.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3419 -- Rep. Mappus: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-5-170 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1989, NO INSURANCE POLICY MAY BE ISSUED OR RENEWED THAT PROVIDES COVERAGE AGAINST PUNITIVE DAMAGES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 38-77-30, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY INSURANCE, SO AS TO EXCLUDE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM THE DEFINITIONS OF "DAMAGES".

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3420 -- Reps. Rudnick, J.C; Johnson, Moss, Snow, Keyserling, J. Bradley, Kirsh, T. Rogers, J. Brown, White and Harvin: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 7-7-15 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR NOTICE OF A CHANGE IN A POLLING PLACE.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3421 -- Rep. J. Bradley: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 5, TITLE 39, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT, BY ADDING SECTION 39-5-25 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT INSURANCE COMPANIES DOING BUSINESS IN THIS STATE ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND THAT IMPROPER CLAIMS PRACTICES ENGAGED IN BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY ARE UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS ACT THEREBY SUBJECTING THE INSURANCE COMPANY TO THE RIGHTS, REMEDIES, AND ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, AND TO AMEND SECTION 39-5-40, RELATING TO THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE ACT TO CERTAIN MATTERS, SO AS TO DELETE THE EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN INSURANCE PRACTICES FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3422 -- Reps. Taylor and Corning: A BILL TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR A MINING OPERATION WHICH EXTRACTS ANY PRECIOUS METAL FROM A PARTICULAR MINE IN THE STATE TO IMPORT ANY RAW MATERIAL EXISTING OUTSIDE AN AREA HAVING A TWELVE-MILE RADIUS IN EVERY DIRECTION FROM THE PROCESSING FACILITY FOR THE MINE INTO SUCH PRESCRIBED AREA FOR PROCESSING PURPOSES, OR ANY OTHER PURPOSE, AT THAT PROCESSING FACILITY, AND TO PRESCRIBE PENALTIES.

Referred to Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

H. 3423 -- Rep. Eliott: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-11-2865 SO AS TO ESTABLISH VEREEN MEMORIAL HISTORICAL GARDENS IN HORRY COUNTY AS A WILDLIFE SANCTUARY AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS.

Referred to Horry Delegation.

H. 3424 -- Reps. J. Bradley and Kohn: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 5, TITLE 38, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS, BY ADDING SECTION 38-5-165 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT WHERE AN INJURED PARTY HAS MADE A WRITTEN OFFER TO SETTLE A CLAIM AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL AND THE SETTLEMENT OFFER IS REFUSED, THE INDIVIDUAL SHALL PAY INTEREST TO THE INJURED PARTY FROM THE DATE OF THE WRITTEN OFFER TO SETTLE IF THE CASE RESULTS IN A VERDICT AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL AND TO PROVIDE THAT WHERE THE VERDICT IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THE SETTLEMENT OFFER, THE INDIVIDUAL IN ADDITION SHALL PAY A PENALTY TO THE INJURED PARTY EQUAL TO TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE VERDICT.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3425 -- Rep. McAbee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-9-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CREATION OF THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION, SO AS TO INCREASE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION FROM SEVEN TO NINE.

Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.

H. 3426 -- Rep. J. Brown: A BILL TO REQUIRE DEADBOLT LOCKS AND SECURITY CHAINS ON THE DOORS TO CERTAIN LEASED OR RENTED ROOMS, LODGINGS, AND ACCOMMODATIONS, TO MAKE THE VIOLATION OF THIS REQUIREMENT A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE, TO PROVIDE PENALTIES, AND TO PROVIDE THAT EVERY INSTANCE IN WHICH THE REQUIRED DEADBOLT LOCK AND SECURITY CHAIN ARE NOT PROVIDED CONSTITUTES A SEPARATE OFFENSE FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROSECUTION AND CONVICTION.

Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.

H. 3427 -- Rep. R. Brown: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 37-5-304 SO AS TO REQUIRE A CREDIT BUREAU OR ANY BUSINESS WHICH PROVIDES CREDIT INFORMATION TO SEND A COPY OF THE REPORT TO EACH PERSON ON WHOM IT ISSUES A REPORT BY REGISTERED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE ISSUANCE AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3428 -- Rep. J.C. Johnson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-63-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AGE OF ATTENDANCE OF PUPILS, SO AS TO PERMIT A CHILD WHO HAS COMPLETED ONE YEAR OF KINDERGARTEN, WITHIN OR WITHOUT THIS STATE, TO ENTER THE FIRST GRADE.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

H. 3429 -- Reps. Wilkins, Gregory, Haskins and Wilder: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 5-15-70, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A MUNICIPAL GOVERNING BODY TO ESTABLISH BY ORDINANCE TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR NOMINATIONS, PRIMARIES, AND CONVENTIONS AND THE PERCENTAGE REQUIRED FOR NOMINATING PETITIONS, SO AS TO REQUIRE ALL NOMINATING PETITIONS TO CONTAIN NO LESS THAN FIVE PERCENT OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF THE OFFICE FOR WHICH HE OFFERS AS A CANDIDATE INSTEAD OF AUTHORIZING THE GOVERNING BODY TO DETERMINE THE PERCENTAGE OF THE PETITION, WITHIN CERTAIN LIMITS, WHICH MUST BE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE MUNICIPALITY; AND TO AMEND SECTION 5-15-110, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT A NOMINATING PETITION BE FILED WITH THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION COMMISSION IN MUNICIPAL, SPECIAL, OR PARTISAN GENERAL ELECTIONS, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE PETITION TO CONTAIN NO LESS THAN FIVE PERCENT OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF THE OFFICE FOR WHICH THE CANDIDATE OFFERS INSTEAD OF THE MUNICIPALITY.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3430 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTIONS 38-75-25 AND 38-75-35 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE LIABILITIES OF INSURERS IN FIRE INSURANCE POLICIES AND TO LIMIT AND REGULATE PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICIES CONTAINING COINSURANCE CLAUSES AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 38-75-20, 38-75-30, AND 38-75-40 RELATING TO POLICIES OF FIRE INSURANCE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICY PROVISIONS WITH COINSURANCE CLAUSES.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3431 -- Reps. Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 15-9-270, AS AMENDED, 15-9-285, AND 38-25-520, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CIVIL REMEDIES AND PROCEDURES AND SERVICE ON INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THE ISSUANCE AND DELIVERY OF A POLICY OF INSURANCE OR CONTRACT OF INSURANCE OR INDEMNITY OFFERED BY AN INSURER NOT LICENSED IN THIS STATE AND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH SERVICE OF PROCESS MUST BE MADE, SO AS TO INCREASE THE FEE FROM FOUR TO TEN DOLLARS WHICH MUST ACCOMPANY THE SUMMONS AND ANY OTHER LEGAL PROCESSES DELIVERED TO THE CHIEF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY AND PROVIDE THAT FIVE DOLLARS OF THIS FEE MUST BE RETAINED BY THE CHIEF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER TO OFFSET HIS COSTS.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3432 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-69-120, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE INCONTESTABILITY OF ANNUITY CONTRACTS AND THE EXCEPTIONS THERETO, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE REQUIRED CONTENTS OF CERTAIN ANNUITIES AND ENDOWMENT CONTRACTS, TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 69, TITLE 38, RELATING TO ANNUITIES BY ADDING SECTION 38-69-30 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN THE PROCEEDS OF AN ANNUITY BECOMING A CLAIM BY THE DEATH OF THE INSURED ARE LEFT WITH AN INSURANCE COMPANY UNDER A TRUST OR OTHER AGREEMENT, THE BENEFITS ACCRUING THEREUNDER AFTER THE DEATH OF THE INSURED ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE NOR SUBJECT TO COMPUTATION OR INCUMBRANCE NOR TO LEGAL PROCESS, EXCEPT IN AN ACTION TO RECOVER FOR NECESSARIES IF THE PARTIES TO THE TRUST OR OTHER AGREEMENT SO AGREE, AND TO REPEAL SECTION 38-69-130 RELATING TO LIMITATIONS ON PROCEEDINGS TO CONTEST CERTAIN ANNUITY CONTRACTS.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3433 -- Reps. Baker, M.O. Alexander, Blackwell, P. Bradley, Clyborne, Fair, Haskins, Mattos, L. Phillips, Rice, Shelton and Wilkins: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE GOVERNING BODY OF ANY COUNTY TO EXTEND UNTIL MARCH 15, 1988, THE DEADLINE FOR APPEALING THE REASSESSMENT OF A PERSON'S AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES FOR TAX YEAR 1987 ONLY.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3434 -- Rep. Baxley: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REQUESTING ALL STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING TO OBSERVE THE VETERANS DAY HOLIDAY AS PART OF THEIR HOLIDAY SCHEDULE.

Referred to Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.

H. 3435 -- Rep. McBride: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 6-9-67 SO AS TO REQUIRE ALL NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES COMPLETED AFTER JUNE 30, 1989, TO HAVE AT LEAST TWO EXTERIOR DOORS FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL DWELLING UNIT.

Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.

H. 3436 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 38-61-20, 38-71-310, AND 38-71-720, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO APPROVAL OF INSURANCE POLICY CONTRACT FORMS GENERALLY BY THE CHIEF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, SO AS TO PROVIDE STANDARDS FOR FORM APPROVAL, AND TO PROVIDE FOR EXEMPTION FROM FORM APPROVAL.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3445 -- Rep. Davenport: A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO RESTORE THE CHARTER OF OPTIMIST CLUB OF SPARTANBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA, IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY.

Without reference.

H. 3446 -- Greenville Delegation: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-280, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO POLLING PRECINCTS AND VOTING PLACES IN GREENVILLE COUNTY, SO AS TO CHANGE THE POLLING PLACE IN PRECINCT 97 (PLINEY) FROM PLINEY GRANGE HALL TO FIVE FORKS BAPTIST CHURCH.

Without reference.

H. 3447 -- Reps. Harvin and E.B. McLeod: A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF CLARENDON COUNTY TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE DISTRICT IN AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES; TO PRESCRIBE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE BONDS MAY BE ISSUED AND THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE PROCEEDS MAY BE EXPENDED; AND TO MAKE PROVISION FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE BONDS.

Referred to Clarendon Delegation.

H. 3448 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-43-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEFINITIONS OF "INSURANCE AGENT", SO AS TO DELETE CATEGORIES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 38-43-20, RELATING TO LICENSING REQUIREMENT OF INSURANCE AGENTS, SO AS TO DELETE CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING CLERICAL AGENCY EMPLOYEES, AND TO ALLOW DELAYED LICENSING FOR AGENTS QUALIFIED TO TRANSACT LIFE, HEALTH, OR GROUP INSURANCE WHEN THE AGENT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY LICENSED FOR THE INSURER WHEN THE AGENT PRESENTS THE PROPOSAL.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3449 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 38-1-20, 38-9-100, 38-25-540, 38-25-550, 38-45-20, 38-45-30, 38-45-90, 38-45-110, 38-75-710, AND 38-75-770, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO INSURANCE, SO AS TO DEFINE "ADMITTED INSURER", "ELIGIBLE SURPLUS LINES INSURER", "NONADMITTED INSURER", AND "SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE" AND TO REGULATE THEIR USE AND ACTIVITIES, AND TO CHANGE PROVISIONS RELATING TO SECURITY DEPOSITS; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTIONS 38-45-160 AND 38-45-170 SO AS TO REGULATE POLICY FEES CHARGED BY BROKERS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CHIEF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER AS TRUE AND LAWFUL ATTORNEY FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS FOR ELIGIBLE SURPLUS LINES INSURERS.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3450 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 38, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO INSURANCE, BY ADDING CHAPTER 85 SO AS TO REGULATE CONSOLIDATIONS AND MORTGAGE INSURANCE OFFERED, ISSUED, OR DELIVERED IN SOUTH CAROLINA, BY MAIL OR OTHERWISE, IN CONNECTION WITH CONSOLIDATIONS.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3451 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 38, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO INSURANCE, BY ADDING CHAPTER 87 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION AND TAXATION OF RISK RETENTION GROUPS AND PURCHASING GROUPS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE FEDERAL LIABILITY RISK RETENTION ACT OF 1986, INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN PENALTIES.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3452 -- Reps. Haskins, Davenport, Rudnick, J. Brown and Keyserling: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 7 IN CHAPTER 5, TITLE 39, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT, SO AS TO DEFINE UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES WITH RESPECT TO MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3453 -- Rep. Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 7, CHAPTER 17, TITLE 16, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY BY ADDING SECTION 16-17-445 SO AS TO PROVIDE RESTRICTIONS UPON UNSOLICITED CONSUMER TELEPHONE CALLS TO RESIDENCES, PROHIBIT THE MAKING OF UNSOLICITED CONSUMER TELEPHONE CALLS TO CERTAIN SUBSCRIBERS, AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS OF VIOLATIONS, AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3454 -- Rep. Foster: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 5, TITLE 61, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE REGULATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION, POSSESSION, CONSUMPTION, AND SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, BY ADDING SECTION 61-5-27 SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANYONE TO TRANSFER OR GIVE ANY ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR TO ANY PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE AND TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS AND A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3455 -- Rep. McEachin: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 11, TITLE 50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF GAME, BY ADDING SECTION 50-11-125 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO SELL LIVE WOLVES WITHIN THE STATE OR TO SHIP OR IMPORT LIVE WOLVES INTO THIS STATE, EXCEPT FOR EXHIBITION PURPOSES UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE WILDLIFE AND MARINE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT.

Referred to Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

H. 3456 -- Rep. McEachin: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-21-610, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REGULATIONS OF THE DIVISION OF BOATING OF THE WILDLIFE AND MARINE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT AS TO THE CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPMENT, AND SAFETY STANDARDS OF BOATS, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE DIVISION TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS WHICH REQUIRE THAT BOATS WITH INBOARD MOTORS OR INBOARD/OUTBOARD MOTORS ARE EQUIPPED WITH MUFFLERS IN GOOD WORKING ORDER OR WITH AN ACCEPTABLE SOUND RETARDING COVERING TO PREVENT EXCESSIVE, UNUSUAL, OR ANNOYING NOISE.

Referred to Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

H. 3457 -- Rep. McLellan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-35-550, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT BATTERIES AND CORDS FOR HEARING AIDS AS WELL AS THE HEARING AIDS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE SALES TAX.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3458 -- Rep. McLellan: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 11, TITLE 8, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO STATE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 9 SO AS TO ESTABLISH A STATE EMPLOYEE LEAVE-TRANSFER PROGRAM WHEREBY SICK LEAVE OR ANNUAL LEAVE OF AN EMPLOYEE OF A STATE AGENCY MAY BE TRANSFERRED FOR USE BY ANOTHER EMPLOYEE OF THAT AGENCY IN CASES OF PERSONAL EMERGENCY.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3459 -- Rep. Lockemy: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE TIME FOR FILING OF APPLICATIONS FOR AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION REQUIRED BY SECTION 12-3-145, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, FOR THE 1987 AND 1988 TAXABLE YEARS IS EXTENDED UNTIL JULY 1, 1988.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3460 -- Rep. Petty: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-6-140, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO FEES FOR AUCTIONEERS' LICENSES, SO AS TO INCREASE THE FEE FOR AN APPRENTICE AUCTIONEER LICENSE FROM FIFTY DOLLARS TO ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3461 -- Rep. Petty: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-6-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS PERTAINING TO AUCTIONEERS, SO AS TO DEFINE "ESTATE" AUCTION; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 40-6-156 SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE SALE AT AUCTION OF ANY PROPERTY OTHER THAN THE PROPERTY OF A SPECIFIED DECEASED PERSON OR THE PROPERTY OF A SPECIFIED LIVING PERSON'S ESTATE AT ANY AUCTION CONDUCTED OR ADVERTISED AS AN ESTATE SALE.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3462 -- Rep. Petty: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-6-80, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO LICENSING OF AUCTIONEERS, SO AS TO ALLOW PERSONS COMPLETING CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION IN AUCTIONEERING AT APPROVED INSTITUTIONS TO BE LICENSED AS AUCTIONEERS AFTER ONE YEAR OF APPRENTICESHIP.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3463 -- Rep. Petty: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-6-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS PERTAINING TO AUCTIONEERS, SO AS TO DEFINE "ABSOLUTE AUCTION" AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 40-6-145 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO CONDUCT OR ADVERTISE THAT AN AUCTION IS "ABSOLUTE" IF MINIMUM OPENING BIDS ARE REQUIRED OR OTHER CONDITIONS ARE PLACED ON THE SALE WHICH LIMIT THE SALE OTHER THAN TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3464 -- Rep. Petty: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 40-6-155 SO AS TO REQUIRE EACH LICENSED AUCTIONEER TO ESTABLISH A PERSONAL PROPERTY TRUST FUND IN WHICH ALL MONIES BELONGING TO ANOTHER WHICH COME INTO HIS POSSESSION THROUGH AN AUCTION SALE MUST BE DEPOSITED.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3465 -- Rep. Petty: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 40-6-200 SO AS TO CREATE THE AUCTIONEER EDUCATION AND RECOVERY FUND.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3466 -- Rep. Keyserling: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 9, CHAPTER 55, TITLE 44, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SEWERAGE DISPOSAL METHODS AT HOMESITES, BY ADDING SECTION 44-55-875 SO AS TO REQUIRE A CERTIFICATE BY THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT OR OTHER APPROPRIATE AGENCY BE FURNISHED TO THE PURCHASER OF A LOT OR PARCEL OF LAND WITHOUT IMPROVEMENTS THAT IT MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR SEPTIC TANK USAGE IF IT IS NOT ACCESSIBLE TO A SEWER LINE, TO REQUIRE THE CERTIFICATE BE FURNISHED AT THE TIME OF THE CLOSING OF THE SALE OF THE LOT OR PARCEL, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

Further proceedings were interrupted by the House receding.

At 1:45 P.M. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.

The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows.

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Arthur                 Aydlette               Bailey, G.
Bailey, K.             Baker                  Barfield
Baxley                 Beasley                Bennett
Blackwell              Blanding               Boan
Bradley, J.            Bradley, P.            Brown, G.
Brown, H.              Brown, J.              Brown, R.
Burch                  Burriss, J.H.          Burriss, M.D.
Burriss, T.M.          Carnell                Chamblee
Clyborne               Cole                   Cooper
Cork                   Corning                Dangerfield
Davenport              Day                    Derrick
Edwards                Elliott                Faber
Fair                   Felder                 Ferguson
Foster                 Foxworth               Gentry
Gilbert                Gordon                 Gregory
Harris, J.             Harris, P.             Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Hearn
Helmly                 Hendricks              Hodges
Huff                   Humphries              Johnson, J.C.
Johnson, J.W.          Jones                  Kay
Keyserling             Kirsh                  Klapman
Kohn                   Koon                   Lanford
Lewis                  Limehouse              Lockemy
Mappus                 Martin, D.             Martin, L.
Mattos                 McAbee                 McBride
McCain                 McEachin               McElveen
McGinnis               McKay                  McLellan
McLeod, E.B.           McLeod, J.W.           McTeer
Moss                   Neilson                Nesbitt
Nettles                Pearce                 Pettigrew
Petty                  Phillips, L.           Phillips, O.
Rhoad                  Rice                   Rogers, J.
Rogers, T.             Rudnick                Sharpe
Sheheen                Shelton                Short
Simpson                Snow                   Stoddard
Sturkie                Taylor                 Thrailkill
Toal                   Townsend               Tucker
Waldrop                Washington             Wells
Whipper                White                  Wilder
Wilkins                Williams               Winstead

Announcement was made that Dr. Charles Duncan of Greenville, is the Doctor of the Day for the General Assembly.

Rep. McLELLAN made a statement relative to the remaining vetoes on H. 2590, R. 243.

Rep. BEASLEY moved to table further consideration of all remaining vetoes.

Rep. AYDLETTE raised the Point of Order that Rep. BEASLEY's motion was out of order as Rep. SHARPE had the floor on Veto No. 128.

The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order and ruled the motion out of order.

Rep. SHARPE relinquished the floor on Veto No. 128.

Rep. BEASLEY moved to table further consideration of all remaining vetoes, which was agreed to.

The following Joint Resolution was taken up.

H. 3174 -- Reps. T.M. Burriss, Corning, Hearn, Toal, M.D. Burriss, McBride, Faber, J. Brown and T. Rogers: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TO CANCEL ITS MORATORIUM ON THE INSTALLATION OF SEWER LINES IN THE EAST RICHLAND COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT.

Rep. T.M. BURRISS moved to table the Joint Resolution, which was agreed to.

The following Bill was taken up, read the third time, and ordered returned to the Senate with amendments.

S. 363 -- Senator Waddell: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-21-125 SO AS TO REQUIRE WATERCRAFT TO SLOW TO NO WAKE SPEED WHEN OPERATED WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FEET OF PUBLIC BOAT LANDINGS OR RAMPS LOCATED ON LAKES AND RESERVOIRS CONSTRUCTED OR DEVELOPED FOR HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION AND TO PROHIBIT SWIMMING WITHIN FIFTY FEET OF THEM.

The following Bill was taken up.

S. 139 -- Senator Setzler: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 57-7-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEPOSITING FOREIGN SUBSTANCES ON HIGHWAYS, SO AS TO INCREASE THE PENALTY WHEN THE DEPOSIT IS LIKELY TO INJURE ANY PERSON, ANIMAL, OR VEHICLE AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE PENALTIES WHEN PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH RESULTS FROM THE DEPOSIT.

The motion of Rep. LIMEHOUSE to reconsider the vote whereby the Bill was given a second reading was taken up.

Rep. LIMEHOUSE spoke in favor of the motion and moved to adjourn debate upon the motion to reconsider until Thursday, January 14, which was adopted.

Rep. McEACHIN moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Tuesday, January 19, which was adopted.

H. 2154 -- Reps. McEachin, Gilbert, McKay and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-21-50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE STATE BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS, SO AS TO REVISE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF CERTAIN LAND SURVEYOR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, AND TO AMEND SECTION 40-21-195, RELATING TO QUALIFICATIONS FOR LICENSING AS A TIER B LAND SURVEYOR, SO AS TO EXTEND FROM TWO TO FOUR YEARS THE PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE QUALIFICATION NECESSARY FOR LICENSURE.

The Conference Report on the following Bill was taken up.

H. 2742 -- Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 50-17-1620 AND 50-17-1621, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TAKING SHRIMP BY CAST NET OVER BAIT, SO AS TO ESTABLISH A SEASON FOR TAKING SHRIMP IN BAITED AREAS, PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SHRIMP BAITING PERMITS, PRESCRIBE THEIR USE, AND THE FEE FOR THEIR ISSUANCE; TO ESTABLISH A CATCH LIMIT AND A POSSESSION LIMIT; AND TO INCREASE PENALTIES.

Rep. FOXWORTH moved to adjourn debate upon the Conference Report until Wednesday, January 20, which was adopted.

Debate was resumed on the Senate Amendments to the following Concurrent Resolution, the pending question being shall the House concur in the Senate Amendments.

H. 2804 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Aydlette, Dangerfield, Foxworth, Holt, Kohn, Mappus, D. Martin, Washington, Whipper and Winstead: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO INVITE THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO HOLD A JOINT SESSION IN CHARLESTON ON MONDAY, MAY 23, 1988, TO CELEBRATE THE BICENTENNIAL OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO INVITE THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO VISIT IN CHARLESTON ON THE PRECEDING WEEKEND BEGINNING ON SATURDAY, MAY 21, 1988.

Rep. J. BRADLEY moved to adjourn debate upon the Senate Amendments, which was adopted.

The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration.

H. 2518 -- Rep. Ogburn: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-11-110, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO MINIMUM MEDICAL, HOSPITAL, AND DISABILITY BENEFITS, PROOF OF LOSS OF INCOME, AND SUBROGATION OR ASSIGNMENT OF BENEFITS UNDER THE AUTOMOBILE REPARATION REFORM ACT OF 1974, SO AS TO PERMIT ASSIGNMENTS TO HOSPITALS, PHYSICIANS, OR OTHER MEDICAL PROVIDERS.

Rep. J. BRADLEY moved to table the Bill, which was agreed to.

Rep. McEACHIN moved that the House do now adjourn.

Rep. HUFF demanded the yeas and nays, which were not ordered.

The question then recurred to the motion that the House do now adjourn, which was rejected.

The following Joint Resolution was taken up.

H. 2550 -- Reps. McEachin, Keyserling and J.W. Johnson: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 9, ARTICLE III, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE ANNUAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL COMMENCE ON THE SECOND TUESDAY IN FEBRUARY INSTEAD OF THE SECOND TUESDAY IN JANUARY, AND TO DELETE OBSOLETE LANGUAGE RELATING TO EARLIER SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

SECTION 1. It is proposed that Section 9, Article III, of the Constitution of this State be amended to read:

"Section 9. The annual session of the General Assembly heretofore elected, fixed by the Constitution of the year Eighteen hundred and Sixty-eight to convene on the fourth Tuesday or November, in the year Eighteen hundred and Ninety-five, is hereby postponed, and the same shall be convened and held in the city of Columbia on the second Tuesday of January, in the year Eighteen hundred and Ninety-six. The first session of the General Assembly elected under this Constitution shall convene in Columbia on the second Tuesday in January, in the year Eighteen hundred and Ninety-seven, and thereafter annually at the same time and place shall convene at the state capitol in the City of Columbia on the second Tuesday of February of each year. Provided, That the The Senate and the House of Representatives shall meet on the first Tuesday following the certification of the election of its members for not more than three days following the general election in even-numbered years for the purpose of organizing. Should If the casualties of war or contagious disease render it unsafe to meet at the seat of government, then the Governor may, by proclamation, may appoint a more secure and convenient place of meeting. Members of the General Assembly shall not receive any compensation for mare than forty days of any one session. Provided, That this limitation shall not affect the first four sessions of the General Assembly under this Constitution."

SECTION 2. The proposed amendment must be submitted to the qualified electors at the next general election for representatives. Ballots must be provided at the various voting precincts with the following words printed or written on the ballots:

"Shall Section 9, Article III, Or the Constitution of this State be amended so as to provide for the annual session of the General Assembly convening on the second Tuesday of February of each year, provide for an organizational session for the Senate in those years in which the membership of the Senate is elected, and to delete obsolete language relating to earlier sessions of the General Assembly?

Those voting in favor of the question shall deposit a ballot with a check or cross mark in the square after the word 'Yes' and those voting against the question shall deposit a ballot with a check or cross mark in the square after the word 'No'."

Rep. O. PHILLIPS and DAY proposed the following Amendment No. 6, which was ruled out of order.

Amend as and if amended. Add new section, Section No. 9 to provide for this provision.

Beginning in the Fiscal Year 1992, terms of all House members will be for 4 years instead of 2 years, 6 years for the Senate instead of 4.

Rep. RUDNICK raised the Point of Order that Amendment No. 6 was out of order as it was not germane to the Joint Resolution.

The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order and ruled the amendment out of order.

Rep. McEACHIN explained the Joint Resolution.

Reps. KIRSH, O. PHILLIPS, SIMPSON.and AYDLETTE spoke against the Joint Resolution.

Rep. KEYSERLING spoke in favor of the Joint Resolution.

Rep. KIRSH moved to table the Joint Resolution.

Rep. McEACHIN demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Arthur                 Aydlette               Bailey, G.
Bailey, K.             Baxley                 Bennett
Boan                   Bradley, J.            Brown, G.
Brown, J.              Burch                  Carnell
Chamblee               Dangerfield            Davenport
Day                    Elliott                Faber
Felder                 Ferguson               Foster
Foxworth               Gilbert                Gregory
Harris, J.             Harris, P.             Harvin
Helmly                 Kay                    Kirsh
Klapman                Kohn                   Koon
Lanford                Limehouse              Martin, D.
Martin, L.             McAbee                 McBride
McGinnis               McLellan               McLeod, E.B.
Neilson                Nesbitt                Nettles
Pettigrew              Petty                  Phillips, L.
Phillips, O.           Rice                   Rogers, J.
Rudnick                Simpson                Snow
Stoddard               Taylor                 Thrailkill
Townsend               Tucker                 Waldrop
Washington             Wells                  Whipper
Wilder                 Williams               Winstead

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Baker                  Barfield               Beasley
Blackwell              Bradley, P.            Brown, H.
Brown, R.              Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.
Clyborne               Cole                   Cooper
Cork                   Corning                Derrick
Fair                   Gentry                 Haskins
Hayes                  Hearn                  Hendricks
Hodges                 Huff                   Humphries
Johnson, J.C.          Johnson, J.W.          Jones
Keyserling             Lewis                  Lockemy
Mappus                 McCain                 McEachin
McElveen               McKay                  McLeod, J.W.
Moss                   Pearce                 Rhoad
Rogers, T.             Sharpe                 Sheheen
Shelton                Short                  Toal
White                  Wilkins

So, the Joint Resolution was tabled.

On H. 2550, the question was asked to table H. 2550 on a Roll Call vote. I voted YES and would like to go on record on changing my vote to NO.

Rep. GEORGE H. BAILEY

Rep. HUFF moved that the House recur to the morning hour.

Rep. T.M. BURRISS raised the Point of Order that the motion to recur to the morning hour was out of order as the House was considering Special Order legislation.

The SPEAKER stated that no Special Order was before the House, and he overruled the Point of Order.

Rep. T. ROGERS moved to table the motion to recur to the morning hour.

Rep. KIRSH moved that the House do now adjourn.

Rep. HEARN demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Bennett                Boan                   Burch
Carnell                Edwards                Helmly
Hendricks              Kirsh                  McEachin
Pearce                 Rogers, J.             Simpson

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Arthur                 Aydlette               Bailey, G.
Bailey, K.             Baker                  Barfield
Baxley                 Beasley                Blackwell
Bradley, J.            Brown, G.              Brown, H.
Brown, J.              Brown, R.              Burriss, M.D.
Burriss, T.M.          Chamblee               Clyborne
Cole                   Cooper                 Cork
Corning                Dangerfield            Davenport
Day                    Derrick                Elliott
Faber                  Fair                   Felder
Ferguson               Foster                 Foxworth
Gentry                 Gilbert                Gregory
Harris, J.             Harris, P.             Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Hearn
Hodges                 Huff                   Humphries
Johnson, J.C.          Johnson, J.W.          Jones
Kay                    Klapman                Kohn
Koon                   Lanford                Lewis
Limehouse              Lockemy                Mappus
Martin, D.             Martin, L.             Mattos
McAbee                 McBride                McCain
McElveen               McGinnis               McKay
McLellan               McLeod, E.B.           Moss
Neilson                Nesbitt                Nettles
Pettigrew              Petty                  Phillips, L.
Phillips, O.           Rhoad                  Rice
Rogers, T.             Rudnick                Sharpe
Sheheen                Shelton                Short
Snow                   Taylor                 Thrailkill
Toal                   Townsend               Tucker
Waldrop                Washington             Wells
Whipper                White                  Wilder
Wilkins                Williams

So, the House refused to adjourn.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. AYDLETTE a leave of absence for the remainder of the day and tomorrow to attend a funeral.

The question then recurred to the motion to table the motion to recur to the morning hour, which was rejected.

The question then recurred to the motion to recur to the morning hour, which was agreed to by a division vote of 50 to 36.

On motion of Rep. TAYLOR, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:

H. 3467 -- Rep. Taylor: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE SOUTH CAROLINA JAYCEES TO USE THE HALL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE COMMITTEE ROOMS OF THE HOUSE IN THE BLATT BUILDING ON SATURDAY AND SUNDAY, JANUARY 23 AND 24, 1988, TO REQUEST THE DIVISION OF GENERAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE FOR REASONABLE USE OF THE UNDERGROUND PARKING FACILITIES AND THE BLATT BUILDING, AND TO ARRANGE FOR ASSISTANCE AND ACCESS BY THE STATE HOUSE SECURITY FORCES.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

That the South Carolina Jaycees are authorized to use the Hall of the House of Representatives and the committee rooms of the House in the Blatt Building on Saturday and Sunday, January 23 and 24, 1988, if the House is not in statewide session on those days, for the purpose of involving the Jaycees in the legislative process and for the purpose of conducting a model legislature.

Be it further resolved that the Division of General Services is requested to provide for the underground parking facilities and the Blatt Building to be made available for reasonable use by the Jaycees and that the State House security forces provide assistance and access necessary for this meeting in accordance with previous procedures.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 3468 -- Rep. M.D. Burriss: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SYMPATHY OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF THE LATE GENERAL EMORY M. SNEEDEN OF COLUMBIA.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

The following was introduced:

H. 3469 -- Charleston County Delegation: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SYMPATHY OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF THE LATE MRS. SEPTIMA POINSETTE CLARK OF CHARLESTON.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

The following was introduced:

H. 3470 -- Reps. Foster, Kirsh, Hayes and Nesbitt: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE CONGRATULATIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO COACH JIMMY WALLACE OF NORTHWESTERN HIGH SCHOOL IN YORK COUNTY ON BEING NAMED ASSOCIATED PRESS SOUTH CAROLINA HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL COACH OF THE YEAR.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

The following was introduced:

H. 3471 -- Reps. J.D. Bradley and Washington: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORATION TO ERECT A TRAFFIC-CONTROL SIGNAL LIGHT AT THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 17 AND HIGHWAY 165 IN THE TOWN OF RAVENEL, COUNTY OF CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.

The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the Charleston Delegation.

The following was introduced:

H. 3472 -- Reps. T. Rogers, J. Bradley, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Alexander, Altman, Arthur, Aydlette, G. Bailey, K. Bailey, Baker, Barfield, Baxley, Beasley, Bennett, Blackwell, Blanding, Boan, P. Bradley, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Burch, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Burriss, Carnell, Chamblee, Clyborne, Cole, Cooper, Cork, Corning, Dangerfield, Davenport, Day, Derrick, Edwards, Elliott, Faber, Fair, Felder, Ferguson, Foster, Foxworth, Gentry, Gilbert, Gordon, Gregory, J. Harris, P. Harris, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Hearn, Helmly, Hendricks, Hodges, Holt, Huff, Humphries, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Johnson, Jones, Kay, Keyserling, Kirsh, Klapman, Kohn, Koon, Lanford, Lewis, Limehouse, Lockemy, Mappus, D. Martin, L. Martin, Mattos, McAbee, McBride, McCain, McEachin, McElveen, McGinnis, McKay, McLellan, E.B. McLeod, J.W. McLeod, McTeer, Moss, Neilson, Nesbitt, Nettles, Pearce, Pettigrew, Petty, L. Phillips, O. Phillips, Rhoad, Rice, J. Rogers, Rudnick, Sharpe, Sheheen, Shelton, Short, Simpson, Snow, Stoddard, Sturkie, Taylor, Thrailkill, Toal, Townsend, Tucker, Waldrop, Washington, Wells, Whipper, White, Wilder, Wilkins, Williams and Winstead: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEMORATE THE LIFE OF J.P. "PETE" STROM, OF COLUMBIA, CHIEF OF THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION FOR MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS AND OFTEN CALLED SOUTH CAROLINA'S "FORTY-SEVENTH SHERIFF," EXPRESS SORROW AT HIS DEATH, AND EXTEND SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS AND ADMIRERS.

Rep. T. ROGERS explained the Concurrent Resolution.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

On motion of Rep. T.ROGERS, the House stood in silent prayer in memory of the late J.P. "Pete" Strom.

Rep. T. ROGERS moved that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn out of memory for the late Chief J.P. "Pete" Strom, which was agreed to.

The Senate sent to the House the following:

S. 985 -- Senator Thomas E. Smith, Jr.: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO FIX 12 O'CLOCK NOON ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1988, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COUNCIL AS THE TIME TO FILL THE SEATS ON THE SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION, THE TERMS FOR WHICH EXPIRE IN 1988.

The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.

The following Bills were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:

H. 3473 -- Rep. Elliott: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-43-220, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CLASSIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT RATIOS OF PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF AD VALOREM TAXATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AFTER AN INITIAL APPLICATION FOR CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY AS A LEGAL RESIDENCE OR AGRICULTURAL REAL PROPERTY IS FILED, NO FURTHER APPLICATION IS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THAT CLASSIFICATION UNTIL THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY CHANGES, TO REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO THE ASSESSOR WITHIN SIX MONTHS WHEN PROPERTY USE CHANGES, AND TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM PENALTIES FOR FAILING TO NOTIFY THE ASSESSOR IN A TIMELY MANNER.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3474 -- Rep. Gregory: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-23-440, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DISCHARGING FIREARMS AT OR INTO DWELLINGS, SO AS TO PROVIDE IT IS UNLAWFUL ALSO TO DISCHARGE FIREARMS AT OR INTO ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE REGULARLY OCCUPIED BY PERSONS.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3475 -- Rep, Pearce: A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO RESTORE THE CHARTER OF GYMKALOS INVESTMENT CORPORATION IN HORRY COUNTY.

On motion of Rep. PEARCE, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.

H. 3476 -- Reps. J. Bradley, G. Bailey, J.W. McLeod, Kohn, M.O. Alexander and Neilson: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 3, TITLE 38, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, BY ADDING SECTION 38-3-66 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE SHALL DESIGN A FORM WHICH EVERY INSURANCE COMPANY DOING BUSINESS IN THIS STATE SHALL USE WHEN OFFERING OPTIONAL COVERAGES IN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICIES.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3477 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Kohn and Mappus: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 11, TITLE 6, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SPECIAL PURPOSE OR PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICTS BY ADDING SECTION 6-11-295 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT VIOLATIONS OF ORDINANCES OR REGULATIONS OF THESE DISTRICTS RELATING TO GARBAGE OR TRASH COLLECTION ARE UNLAWFUL AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR THESE VIOLATIONS.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3478 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Boan and J.W. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-63-40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF AN INDIVIDUAL LIFE INSURANCE POLICY FOR A MARRIED INDIVIDUAL AND CHILDREN FROM CLAIMS OF CREDITORS AND TO AMEND SECTION 38-65-90, RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF A GROUP LIFE INSURANCE POLICY FOR A MARRIED INDIVIDUAL AND CHILDREN FROM CLAIMS OF CREDITORS, SO AS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF LIFE INSURANCE COVERED BY THESE SECTIONS FROM TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND TO FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND TO REMOVE THE PROTECTION PROVIDED FOR A MARRIED INDIVIDUAL AND CHILDREN IN THESE SECTIONS WHEN THE POLICY WAS OBTAINED WITH THE INTENT TO DEFRAUD CREDITORS OR THE CREDITOR OR REPRESENTATIVE POSSESSES A VALID ASSIGNMENT OF THE CASH SURRENDER VALUE OF THE POLICY FROM THE POLICYHOLDER ON A SEPARATE FORM.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3479 -- Rep. J. Bradley: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 71, TITLE 38, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE, BY ADDING SECTION 38-71-225 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO ACCIDENT OR HEALTH INSURER MAY ASSERT A CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF BENEFITS PAID AGAINST AN INSURED'S ACTUAL OR ANTICIPATED RECOVERY FROM A TORTFEASOR, AND AN ACCIDENT OR HEALTH INSURER MAY NOT INCLUDE SUCH A PROVISION IN ITS INSURANCE POLICIES OR REQUIRE AN AGREEMENT THERETO AS A CONDITION OF ISSUING THE POLICY.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3480 -- Rep. J. Bradley: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 53-5-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNOR TO DECLARE CHRISTMAS EVE A HOLIDAY FOR STATE EMPLOYEES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE GOVERNOR MAY NOT DECLARE CHRISTMAS EVE A HOLIDAY FOR STATE EMPLOYEES IF THERE IS AN INTERVENING WEEKEND BETWEEN THE HOLIDAY GRANTED FOR DECEMBER TWENTY-FIFTH AND THE HOLIDAY GRANTED FOR DECEMBER TWENTY-SIXTH UNLESS HE DECLARES CHRISTMAS EVE A HOLIDAY IN LIEU OF THE HOLIDAY TO BE GRANTED FOR DECEMBER TWENTY-SIXTH.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 3481 -- Rep. J. Bradley: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 33, CHAPTER 5, TITLE 56, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SIZE, WEIGHT, AND LOAD OF MOTOR VEHICLES, BY ADDING SECTION 56-5-4165 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WHEN CHECKING VEHICLES FOR WEIGHT AND LOAD AT DEPARTMENT-OPERATED WEIGH STATIONS OR SCALES SHALL ALSO RANDOMLY CHECK THESE VEHICLES, IN A MANNER DETERMINED BY THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, FOR THE OPERATING EQUIPMENT AND SAFETY DEVICES REQUIRED BY LAW.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

H. 3482 -- Rep. J. Bradley: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 11, TITLE 6, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS AND PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICTS, BY ADDING SECTION 6-11-310 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THESE DISTRICTS, NOT OTHERWISE EMPOWERED TO CONDEMN BY LAW, ARE GRANTED THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND FOR THIS PURPOSE ARE CONSIDERED TO BE "CONDEMNORS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE ACT.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3483 -- Reps. J. Bradley, T. Rogers, Limehouse, G. Bailey, Blanding, Waldrop, Neilson, Wells, Gentry, Davenport, Cole, Keyserling, G. Brown, Ferguson, Koon, Baxley, O. Phillips; Sharpe, Arthur, Moss, Whipper, D. Martin, Elliott, Barfield, Thrailkill and Jones: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 3, TITLE 56, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REGISTRATION AND LICENSING OF MOTOR VEHICLES, BY ADDING SECTION 56-3-235 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WHEN FURNISHING BY MAIL RENEWAL FORMS FOR THE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING OF MOTOR VEHICLES SHALL ALSO ENCLOSE A BROCHURE OF THE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT RELATING TO RATES OF AUTOMOBILE INSURERS.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

H. 3484 -- Reps. J. Rogers and Limehouse: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-4140, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO WEIGHT OF VEHICLES AND COMBINATIONS OF VEHICLES AND LOADS, SO AS TO ALLOW CONTINUATION OF THE 35, 200-POUND TANDEM AXLE WEIGHT LIMIT BEYOND SEPTEMBER 1, 1988, AND TO ELIMINATE REFERENCES TO MORATORIUMS ON ENFORCEMENT OF THE FEDERAL BRIDGE FORMULA.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

H. 3485 -- Rep. Day: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-67-420, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION OF CHILDREN, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ASSIGN PRIORITY BASED ON THE CHILDREN'S AGES IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO ASSUME THE TRANSPORTATION FOR THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND SAFETY.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

H. 3486 -- Rep. Davenport: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 14-7-1370, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO COMPENSATION OF JURORS IN CIRCUIT COURTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A JUROR SERVING IN ANY COURT OF THE UNIFORM JUDICIAL SYSTEM SHALL RECEIVE FOR EACH HOUR HE IS REQUIRED TO SERVE THE MINIMUM WAGE REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 AND INCREASE THE MILEAGE ALLOWANCE FROM FIVE CENTS A MILE TO TWENTY CENTS A MILE AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 14-9-250 AND 22-2-160 RELATING TO COMPENSATION OF CORONER'S JURORS AND JURORS IN COUNTY AND MAGISTRATE'S COURTS.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3487 -- Rep. Davenport: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 14-7-1335 SO AS TO PROHIBIT POLLING OF A JUROR AFTER THE FOREMAN HAS DECLARED A VERDICT.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3488 -- Rep. Davenport: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 57-25-20 SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE PLACING OF A FLASHING LIGHT SIGN OR A PORTABLE SIGN COMMONLY KNOWN AS A PORT-A-SIGN WITHIN FIFTEEN FEET OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ANY HIGHWAY, ROAD, OR STREET AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

H. 3489 -- Reps. J.C. Johnson, Kirsh, McAbee, Carnell, McLellan and Cooper: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 43, TITLE 12, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY FOR PROPERTY TAX PURPOSES, BY ADDING SECTION 12-43-222 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE LEGAL RESIDENCE OF A DECEDENT NOT OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE FOR THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT RATIOS FOR LEGAL RESIDENCES IS ENTITLED TO THESE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT RATIOS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3490 -- Reps. J.C. Johnson, McAbee, Carnell and Cooper: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 37, TITLE 12, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS, BY ADDING SECTION 12-37-251 SO AS TO PROVIDE ANY PERSON WHO MEETS THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION BUT OWNS HIS DWELLING PLACE TOGETHER WITH AT LEAST ONE OTHER PERSON, NOT HIS SPOUSE, WHO DOES NOT MEET THESE QUALIFICATIONS IS ENTITLED TO A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION THEREON IN A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3491 -- Reps. J.C. Johnson, McAbee, Cooper, Carnell and P. Harris: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-35-550, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO EXEMPT THE CROSS PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING HOSPITAL BEDS, WHEELCHAIRS, AND CRUTCHES, NOT OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM THE SALES TAX WHEN PURCHASED FOR INDIVIDUAL AND NOT INSTITUTIONAL USE.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3492 -- Rep. Simpson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-5360, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION STATIONS, SO AS TO RAISE THE VEHICLE INSPECTION FEE TO FIVE DOLLARS AND THE FEE FOR THE INSPECTION STICKER TO ONE DOLLAR.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3493 -- Reps. Edwards, Felder and Winstead: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-53-51, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EDUCATIONAL AND FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE OPERATION OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT LOCALLY APPROPRIATED COUNTY FUNDS ALSO ARE CONSIDERED LOCAL FUNDS OF THE INSTITUTION AND TO PROVIDE THAT LOCAL FUNDS OF AN INSTITUTION MUST BE RETAINED AND EXPENDED LOCALLY UNDER GUIDELINES OF THE STATE BOARD FOR TECHNICAL AND COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION, AND TO AMEND SECTION 59-53-53, RELATING TO BORROWING BY AREA COMMISSIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN AREA COMMISSION MAY ISSUE COVENANTS, ENTER INTO MORTGAGES, AND GRANT LIENS LIMITING THE SALE OR USE OF CERTAIN PARCELS OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY IN ITS POSSESSION WHEN REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF ACCEPTING A GRANT, LOAN, OR DONATION FOR SPECIFIED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

H. 3497 -- Reps. Kirsh, McLellan, Gregory, Fair, Klapman, J. Harris, Winstead, Ferguson, Hodges, Baker, T. Rogers, Elliott, Taylor, Stoddard, Shelton, J.W. Johnson, Hayes, Nesbitt, R. Brown, M.O. Alexander, Foster, Mattos, McKay, Gentry, Blackwell, Rice, McCain, Huff, L. Phillips, Gilbert, Day, Townsend, G. Bailey, Williams, Gordon, T.C. Alexander, J.C. Johnson, Boan, Lockemy, Hearn, P. Harris, McBride, Waldrop, K. Bailey, Bennett, Corning, White, Nettles, Sheheen, Beasley, Davenport, D. Martin, Faber, Haskins, O. Phillips, Arthur, Lewis, Petty, Kay, Thrailkill, McGinnis, Cole, Lanford, Simpson, Mappus, Wilkins, Toal, Barfield, J. Rogers, Washington, J. Bradley, P. Bradley, McEachin, T.M. Burriss, McAbee, Carnell and Clyborne: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 22 TO TITLE 1 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMPLIANCE REVIEW ACT OF 1988 BY CREATING A FORMAL STRUCTURED PROCESS TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE REORGANIZATION COMMISSION TO DETERMINE THE DEGREE OF AGENCY COMPLIANCE WITH THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COUNCIL REPORTS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE CHAPTER TO APPLY TO ANY AUDIT OR REPORT RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1988.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

The following was introduced:

H. 3494 -- Rep. Davenport: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO INSTALL A TRAFFIC-CONTROL DEVICE AT THE INTERSECTION OF S.C. HIGHWAY 9 AT FOURTH STREET AND SHOALLY CREEK ROAD IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY.

The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the Spartanburg Delegation.

The following was introduced:

H. 3495 -- Rep. Davenport: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO INSTALL A TRAFFIC-CONTROL DEVICE WITH DELAYED TURNING ARROWS AT THE INTERSECTION OF S.C. HIGHWAY 176 AT SPRINGFIELD AND CREOSOTE ROAD IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY.

The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the Spartanburg Delegation.

The following was introduced:

H. 3496 -- Rep. Davenport: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO INSTALL A TRAFFIC-CONTROL DEVICE AT THE INTERSECTION OF S.C. HIGHWAY 9 AT DOUBLE BRIDGE ROAD (S.C. 42-931) NEAR BOILING SPRINGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY.

The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the Spartanburg Delegation.

Rep. J. ROGERS moved that the House do now adjourn, which was adopted.

At 3:30 P.M. the House in accordance with the motion of Rep. T. ROGERS adjourned out of memory for the late Chief J.P. "Pete Strom to meet at 2:00 P.M. tomorrow.

This web page was last updated on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 1:37 P.M.