Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1905-08-11

their duty to look into the affairs Of the
county dispensaries. He said he did
not see how any one could for one
single instant urge or suggest the
proposition that the legislature was
not in favor Of unearthing corruption
or fraud in dispensaries, whether the
town or state dispensaries. He took 1t
that when the legislature passed that
resolution, and used the expression
state dispensary" that they meant
the dispensary run In the state
of South Carolina, and there was no
distinction, 80 far as the law was con-
lcerned, between county and state, as
this resolution affected 1t, and under
this ruling already made by the COM
mittee at Sumter. Senator Christensen
and himself had come to Spartanburg
and taken this testimony and he SUBJ
mitted that 1t was perfectly compe-
tent and proper that not only the peo-
pie Of South Carolina be enlightened
on the dispensary as run in Spartan
burg, but that the people of Spartan
burg should know how 1t Is being run.
He stated further that this testimony
had been obtained by Mr.. Christensen
and himself, believing they were dis
charging their duty. but Of course It
was a matter for the committee to
pass upon.
Mr.. Sims here read the resolution
creating the committee, saying that 1t
simply referred to an investigation Of
the affairs Of the state dispensary and
he thought II the legislature had in
tended that the committee should go
into an investigation Of the county dis
pensaries 1t would have said 80. It
seemed to him that the resolution did
not refer to anything except the state
dispensary. During the course of his
remarks, Mr.. Sims said that I'VE
presumably he and Mr.. Blackwood)
do not represent Mr.. Henry except in
directly. but We cannot see how in the
world he can be brought in here, II he
changed his policy or did not change
It, and we think it is improper and he
should be kept out"
Mr.. Lyon: would like to ask the
gentleman in order that we may know
as Tom Watson says, Where we are
at" whom he represents? Mr.. Sims:
I represent C. o. Smith, and you get
up anybody else will tell you II
represent them.
Mr.. Lyon: We are here for an open,
square deal, and we want the gentle-
man and everybody else to know
where we stand in this matter, and
we think II he intends to represent
anybody here, he should say whom he
does represent and not wait for some
contingency or emergency to come
forward and say he represents this
man, or the other man. Mr.. Lyon
continued at some further length
along this line.
Chairman Hay said that the COM
mittee was not trying any particular
individual, but making an investiga-
ton, and II in the course Of that in
vestigation any particular individual
was so unfortunate as to get in the
way or be brought in, then 1t could be
brought to the attention Of the COM
mittee whether he wanted TO be or
would be heard, and whether any par
ticular attorney represented him or
not. AS to the main point, this COM
mittee decided at the meeting held In
March in Sumter the investigation Of
these county dispensaries was within
the scope Of the committee. That was
the rule adopted by the committee.
II he was in error in making this
statement any member could call 1t to
the attention Of the committee, but the
investigation Of county dispensaries
had been decided by the committee to
be within the scope Of the concurrent
resolution under which the committee
was appointed, and the fact Of this be-
ing a concurrent resolution and not
Joint resolution or act Of the legisla-
ture, the same construction could be
placed upon its terms as upon the
terms of the concurrent resolution.
That having been decided by the COM
mittee the objections would have to
be raised, not in general way, but
as to specific matters.
Mr.. Lyon stated in addition that the
view he entertained was that the COM
mittee was not bound down to the le-
gal technicalities in the abduction OF
evidence, as II would be II some one
were on trial for his life or liberty.
AS for himself he was opposed to be-
ing bound down by any legal techni-
calities in ascertaining the truth Of
conditions as they exist, and he had
acted upon that heretofore and would
act upon 1t until the committee over
ruled him.
Mr.. Sims said he did not mean to be
impolite when he would not tell whom
he represented, but that he did not
want to do 1t, because he did not want
to bring his clients before the commit
tee unless the clients were brought In
to the matter.
Mr.. Lyon continued the reading OF
the affidavit to the witness, John II.
Morris, who went on to testify as fol-
lows: C. o. Smith, member OF the
board Of control. asked me how much
expense / had been put to and upon
my telling him, he said that that was
very cheap, that 1t would cost me
more than that to be elected again.
/ did not know positively what ne
meant, but supposed
Mr.. Sims: What he supposed is an
opinion, and we think 1t Is incompe-
tent
Chairman Hay said he thought 1t
was incompetent for Mr.. Lyon to pro-
ceed along that line. After further
argument Mr.. Lyon proceeded with
the reading of the affidavit Of Nor
ris, who said "I did not know posi-
lively what he meant, but supposed 1t
meant that I would have to pay the
county board Of control something for
1t. l inferred this because ex-Beer
Dispenser B. L. Toland told me that he
had to pay C. o. Smith $275 for his
election, beside the beer and whisky
he gave him.
Mr.. Sims objected to the last para