University of South Carolina Libraries
LYON NAMES THOSE WHO WERE GIVEN IMMUNITY ATTORNEY GENERAL MAKES RE PLY TO GOVERNOR. In Response to Gov. Blease's Request for Certain Information Anent Winding-Up Affairs. Columbia, March 24.-Giving the list of those who were promised immunity, because of having either turned State's evidence or given certain evi dences, or giving up certain informa tion, a defeuce of the granting of im munity and much <ther interesting data that the general public had here tofore beeu unacquainted with, Attor ney General J. Fraser Lyon this after noon sent to Governor Cole. L. Blease a letter, in reply to the one sent to the attroney general by Governor Blease on the day the dispensary commission was dismissed. The letter was "released for pub lication" by Governor Blease, upon Attorney General Lyon's statement 'that the newspaper men would have to get permission of the governor for the letter to be published. The letter given out by Attorney General Lyon this afternoon is the first public statement he has made since the whole dispensary situation was revived by Governor Blease's call ing for an investigation, except Mr. Lyon's request to the legislature for an investigation. Upon other matters, Mr. Lyon has no statements to make at this time. Attorney General's Letter. The following is the letter in full: "Columbia, S. C., March 23, 1911. "Governor C. L. Blease, Columbia, S. C.-Dear Sir: Replying to your letter of the 14th instant, I will say: "M. A. Goodman was indicted by the grand jury of Richland county. Upon his giving rie certain evidence showing the guilt of former dispensary officials, and furnishing me informa tion as to how other evidence of sim ilar nature could be obtained, nol pros was, or will be in due time, en tered upon indictments against him. "J. T. Early and J. B. Wylie testi God as witnesses for the State in sev eral cases. Their testimony h.as large ly appeared in public prints. On ac 'count of this, I shall not press indict ments against them ani have agreed to institute no further proceedings against them in behalf of the State. "Henry Samuels testified before the diapensary commnision, and in the criminal court as a State's witness. I have, therefore, agreed to diiscontinue prosecution against him. "I. W. Bernheim an otners were indicted in Chester and it was agreed 'bhat he, as witness, shonld give bond ini the sum of $5,000 or deposit, in lieu thereof $5,000 in cash, and if he shall not duly appear, the cash to be tqrfeited, otherwise to be turned over 15o the State dispensary comnmission. Five thousand dollars has been de lposited with the clerk of court at (*ester. "I. W. Bernheim and B. Bernheim paid the State dispensary commission at one time $30,00)0, and at another $3 4,000, for overcharges on liquors sold the dispensary. Taking into con g(deration all the cir'.umstances, I have agreed to nol pros as to I. W Bernh eim. "Upon indictments against D. Weis kopf nol pros will be eatered, upon his testifying the truth, as a witness in behalf of the State, with reference to sale of large quantities of labels sold by Nivison W.eiskopf to the State diepensary. "J. S. Farnum was indicted, tried and acquitted. Theredter, he plead guilty and was fined $5,000. Upon oth er indictments against him nol plos awas, or will be, entered. As to Col. Dudley. i'C. W. Dudley, in addition to giving 'evidence to the State dispensary com mission, testified in Chester in the case against John Black and others, 'as a State's witness, and I have agreed not to prosecute him. "B. SE. Wilson has furnished infor tion concerning certain iransac ions between the Richland Distillery ompany and the former :state dispen sary and has agreed to testify in re gard thereto, and I have agreed that I will not prosecute him for, or on ac count- of his connection with the transactions about which he tseti!ied. "G. Hf. Charles gave information generally as to dispensary transac tions; testified before the grand jury ifthe case against H. H. Evans and was emloyed as a detective. On ac count of the above, it was not my pur pose t o prosecute him, even though btshould have been determined that an ctin would probad1y lie against him. I am informed that Mr. Charles brts recently died. "W D. Roy testifi ed as a witneCss for the State in the case against JIohn: 1Mack. <-t al, and before the grand Jerry, bes1ieS giving assistance in 'rr~ing ur' the eas~e~. ~t L~ inY IM!l' pose noz to prosecute him. "I cannot recall anyone else who has agreed to turn State's evidence, or whom I have agreed not to prosecute. But if I find that any name has been in any manner overlooked; I will ad vise you upon the ascertainment thereof. I cannot say definitely, but am of the impression that among those whom I have agreea not to pro secute the following were suggested by Mr. Felder, as persons who would give evidence for the State in such actions as might be instituted: W. D. Roy, B. M. Wilson, D. Weiskopf, J. T. Early, C. W. Dudley and M. A. Good man. On His Own Responsibility. "I am unable to make the definite statement that Mr. Felder suggested that the persons above should not be prosecuted, for the reason that I, as attorney general, have exercised this power upon my own responsibility, and in accordance witn my own judg ment. "Referring to that part of your let ter, dhich asks what civil actions were settled or compromised and the terms thereof, will say: That the civil account of which is stated opposite the Messrs. Anderson, Felder, Rountree and Wilson, Mr. W. F. Stevenson and Mr. B. L. Abney, Messrs. Abney and Stevenson having active charge and management thereof. Mr. Stevenson has furnished me the following list of civil actions, which have been com promised. The actions were compro mised for the payment of money, the acount of which is stated opposite the names of the defendants given below: Gallagher & Burton, $11,395; Lana han & Sons, $14,083.46; Grabfelder & Co., $15,297.17;Roskam-Gerstley com pany, $3,066.37; Friedman-Keiler company, $1,585; Meyer-Pitts & Co., $3,437.50; Jack Cranston company, $802.21; American Bonding company, $500. "In s'everal of the above cases the! defendants had presented claims against the State, which were disal lowed. Such amounts are in addition to the amount of moneys to which ref erence is above made. "The act of 1910 authorized the dis pensary commission to make settle ment of such claims. Power to Offer Only. "Answering your inquiry as to that part of the contract entered into be tween the State dispensary commis sion and Anderson,'Felder, Rountree and Wilson, wherein it is provided tb at Anderson, Felder, Rountree and Wilson are clothed with full power, subject alone to the approval of the attorney general of the State, to offesr any of the parties involved immunity from prosecution, will say: The pow er to offer immunity was given this firm, but the power to grant immunity, that is, to refuse to prosecute, or, in case of indictment, to nol pros, was left as the law provides, in the dis cretion of the attorney general, this provision was inserted in the contract. Whether a;ny person should not be in dicted, or if indicted shou:ld have the indictment against him, remains so far as -the contract is concerned,. just as thelaw provides. "The policy of the State to allow immunity under the circumstances may be fairly inferred from the act of 1906, providing for the investigation of the dispensary, wherein it is pro vided that no testimony given by wit nesses before the committee shall be used against them in a criminal prose cution. This provision of law was perpetuated and became a part of the law under which the State dispensary commission was created. (Acts of 1907, page 833.) So it must follow, in dependently of the law givIng such power to the attorney general, that such of those whose names are men tioned above, who testified before the investigating committee, or the State 'dispensary commission, practically have immunity under this act. Attorney General Has Discretion. "But aside from the manifest policy of the legislature, as contained in the above mentioned act, the attorney gen eral has discretion as to when, how and against whom to proceed in crim inal cases. He has the power to en ter a nolle prosequi by virtue of his office, independently of the court. (Ency of Law, 25, pages 275 and 276. State vs. Howard. 15 Rich Law, 274. State vs. McKee, 1 Bailey, 631.) This rule is laid down in the McKee cave that the prosecuting offie'nr may enter a nolle prosequi at any sta.tc of th. proceedings until the jury are charg ed, but he cannot do so afterwards, not at least in case of an indictment for a capital offence, and if he is per mitted to do so its effect is the ac Quittal of the prisoner. Tihe above rule is also recognized in Archbold's Criminal Practice, Kolume? 1, page 317. "I B:ihop on Criminal Procedure. second edition. Volume 1, Section 1. 020, it is said: "If the p)roserntor in the English -practice wishes o makA use of one of the def*ndants as a wit ness the c,ourt wil i prmit a verdict of aeeujT:~! to ,. ~akra a: once iti lii:; case, and thus he will be rendered competent. In our own States the ready method in such c,rcumstances would ordinarily be for the prosecut ing officer to enter a nol pros as to the defendant whose testimony he wished to use. "The following rule is laid down by Bishop, Volume 1, Section 1,076: 'In the United States where prosecutions are instituted and carried on by a public prosecutor, who acts directly .for the government and, protects its interests, there is an evident proprie ty in considering it to be within the exclusive discretion of this officer to determine whether or not an accom plice should be permitted to turn State's evidence, as it is sometimes ex pressed with us, and whether, if he does, he is afterward entitled to be no further prosecuted by reason of what is thus done.' "It is not easy to say what, in fact, is the practice on this point in all the States, but it is believed that, in most of them, the prosecuting officer acts in such cases upon his own discretion, which is little, if at all, controlled by the courts. Authorities Cited. "That the discretion is reposed in the prosecuting officer independently of the court in this State is shown in the McKee case and others hereinafter referred to. In the case of Rogers vs. Hill, 22 R. I., page 498, it is said: The practice of entering a nolle pro sequi to informations is very ancient, but to indictments it began in the la, ter end of the reign of Charles II.' It is further said in this case that 'there arQ three periods of a prosecution in which a nolle prosegri may be enter ed, before a jury is empanelled, while the case is before the jury and after the verdict. In the first, it is perfectly clear that a nol pros may be entered at the pleasure of the prosecuting of ficer; such is the constant practice. It may be that the indictment is defec tive, and he may wish to procure an other, he may discover that the evi dence will turn out indifferently from what he expected and be may wish to vary the charge to make it conform to the proof, or he may have good reason for not wishing to prosecute at all. "'There may be innumerable caus es for discontinuing the prosecution, allI of which he may judge upon his official responsibility. In many cas es the discontinuance may operate to the ~prejudice of the defendant, but niever to the injury of 'his legal rights. It is not to be presumed that this of *ficer will violate his duty or act op pressively.' And it is further said in The case that he exercises that power wholly upon his official resposibility, without the advice or permission of the court. "In the case of the State vs. Thom as, 75 S. C.,, 479-480, the rule in the McKee case as to tne power to enter a, nolle prosequi is reaffirmed. In the case of the State vs. Cardoza, 11 S. C., 197, it appears that Richard H. Gleav es, Samuel J. Lee, Josepihus Wood ruff, -A.- 0. Jones' and Frandisr'L. Car doza were indicted for 'conspi-racy. The attorney general; the- Honk -Js Conner, called this case for trial and entered a nolle prosequi as to the de fendants, Samnuel J. Lee, Josephus Woodruff and A. 0. Jones; Richard H. Gleaves not having been a.rrested, the trial proceeding against Francis Car doza alone. (See .page 201.) It ap pears from the case ap. recorded that Gleaves, Woodruff and Jones were used as State's witnesses. It will al so be noted with interest that three of my most distinguished predeces sors in the office, the Hon. Leroy You mans, the Hon. Jomnes Conner and the Hon. C. R. Miles appeared as attor neys for the State. During Reconstraction. "The following quotation from 'A Voice from South Carcolina,' Leland, throws an interesting H.i-'t upon the practice of the prosecuting attorney in this State granting immunity. It is in reference to prosecutions for frauds committed during the Recon struction. More than thirty true bills have been found by grand juries of Richland coun:ty, not very much var led in their character, and covering a long list of names. Sometimes five or air names would be embraced under the same indictment and sometimes the same name would be found sever al times repeated. For insance, the name of Cardoza will be found on nine separate in-dictments. " 'With this explanation, only the following names can now b)e found on the docket: H. H. Kimpton, D. H. Chamberlain, R. K. Scott, F. J. Moses. N. G. 'Parker, F. L. Cardoza, Robert Smaalls, .J. L. Neagle, F. S. Jacobs, (Solomnons Bank) B. F. Whittemnore, Solomon L. Hoge, Y. J. Powers, Tfhos. C. Dunn, R. H. Gleaves, Samuel J. Lee. JIosephus Woodruff. A. 0. .iones andi L. Cass Carpenter. Of these, Parker, L. Case Car penter, Cardoza and Smalls have been tried and convicted on one indictment eah; so far, the other criminals have no~t been accessible. ~I~inunity has beer. 4rante~i to il 1ha Analysis obtained They ar< actual fi requires, formulat Eve selected work to plant fer regular Ask see that When y< you are ROYSTl F. S. d NOR very many, mostly members of the legislature, as in the seventy-five ex amined in Patterson's case. In other cases, as Woodruff's, Jones's, Nash's, and some others, promises of restitu Uion were exacted and complied with, and thus the State was relieved of a large amount of indebtedness by the surrender of papers. How much, if any, money was refunded, has never come to light.' "On page 228 of this book it is stat ed that N. G. Parker was tried and convicted in the summer of 1875, un der an indictment of larceny, and breach of trust with fraudulent in tent; escaped from jail, was recaptur ed and finally pardoned for that,. of fence, 'on the promise to tell all he knew.. "I have quoted at length from the above authorities in order that it may appear that it has always been the la~w and the practice in this State for the prosecuting officer to determine who should, and w'ho should not be prose cuted, and whom he snouldl allow to become State's evidence. "Yours very truly, (Signed) "J. Fraser Lyon, "Attorney'General. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, COUNTY OF NEWBERRY. Frances L. Haltiwanger, Texanla Samuel. Lenora Eleazer, ' Mattie - E. Alewine, Kizzie C. Chapman, John J. Haltiwanger, Holland 8. Haltiwanger, Wilbur .Haltiwanger and Lula Fulmer, Plaintiffs, I *againat. Burte11 Haltiwanger, Defendant. By virtue of an order of .the Court herein, I will sell to the highest bid der before the Court House at New berry, S. C., Monday, salesday, April 3, 1911, within the legal hours of sale all that lot of land near the 'town of Newberry, County of Newberry, State of South Carolina, containing two-thirds (2-3) of an acre, more or less, bounded by lands of B. C. Mat thews, Nat Gist and an unnamed street, which will more fully appearI on a plat now of record in Flat Book "D," at page 53, in the office of the Register of Mesne Conveyances for1 Newberry County. Terms of sale: Cash. H. N. RIKARD, 3-14-3t-taw. Master N. C. S. C. FLORIDA-CUBA! 'y Not Take a Trip to0 FLORIDA or CUlBA?" They have been brought within easy reach by the splendid Through Train Ser.. vice of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad., Write for illustrated book lets, rates or any other infor-I mation, which will be cheer fully furnished. T. C. WHITE, Gen. Pass. Agt., WiIng n N. C. 'qAACt MAIM REGISTEREDs t there is more to a Fertilizer tha is proven conclusively by the resul every year from Royster Fertilizer made from experience obtained I -ld experiments - of what the plai and not from ready referen< ing. ry ingredient in Royster Goods for its plant food value; and has i do at the proper time, therefore ti tilized with ROYSTER goods is f< from sprouting time until harvest. your dealer for Royster goods at the trade-mark is on every baj )u see this 9.Q + you know th getting the genuine and origin R Fish Fertilizer. ROYSTER GUANO COMPANY, FACTORIES AND SALES OFFICES: OC.K VA. TARBORO. N. C COLUMBIA. S. C. LTIMORE. MD. MACON, GA SPARTANBURG. S. C. OLUMBUS. GA. MONTGOMERY. ALA. I Te.ManW Any man can go with forts before ht can safel3 a savings account. It is in time of idleness, and policy against sickness; for his loved ones in cas above all it is hfs testim self-denial, industry, fo independence. Luck ar but little part in the dra industrial life. It is the man who wo he can and saves wha wins. He wins because fit. That is the law. ONE BIG ROUM' will start you on the road placed in our Savings D by adding more of the a and every week you'll hi worry about the future. E PAY 49 ____THE Newberry Savii OF NEWBERR Capital - - - -JAS. McINTOSHl, President. Prize Offers from Leading Book on patents. "H ints to -ventoi "Why some inventors fail." Send r< search of Patent Office records. Our . Acting Commissioner of Patents, and a the U. S. Patent Office e GCREELEY& WAASHiNGTON, n ts s. it s ';e is. ts it io Wins >ut many com dispense with his paymaster his insurance it is protection e of death, and :nial of manly rethought and d fortune play ma of modern rks every day t he can, who he is the most ) DOLLAR to success if it's partment, and ame kind each e no cause to INTEREST igs Bank Y, S. C. $50,000.00 J. E. NORWOOD, Cashier, Manufacturers s." "Inventions needed." ugh sketch or model for Ar. Gireeley was formerly. such had full charge of INT IRE, ?