The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1905-08-25

four years ago this was the banner
firm of the dspensary. Col. Mixson
stated that the senior member of the
firm made him the offer personally
and offered to sell liquor at the same
price that other firms were selling,
and by paying $4,000 to COL Mixson
for a portion Of the states business
that the state would lose nothing
and that COL Mixson would get easv
money. Col. Mixson further said
that Mr.. Lanahan offered $1,000 to
Mr.. Seth w. Scruggs to get him
(Mixson) to accept the offer, which
he was prompt in refusing.
Now it will no doubt be Nh. Lana
hans turn to be heard from, for he
is one of the largest ,wealrtiest and
best established dealers in America.
But this is not all. Col. Mixson
swore that Mihalovitch, Frether &
Co., also offered him money to buy
from them. and that Mr. Hubbell,
representing the Mill Creek Distilling
company, got things down to more
businesslike basis and Offered him
S262.5o per carload OF fifty barrels.
He offered to pay him this in cash,
but declined to make a similar re-
duction in the price of the liquor.
Col. Mixson stated that he was
prompt in reporting this to Gov.
Evans and that he (Mixson) never
bought drop of liquor from firm
that made him any offers, direct or
indirect.
Col. Mixson testified that he OBJ
tanned a cash discount on all the bulk
goods he bought for the dispensary,
and that his prices were cheaper
than is now paid.
Messrs. CASTOR and Spivey, after
bringing out the alleged Lanahan Of
| fer, connected Mr.. Lanahan as one of.
tf1e large owners and directors Of
the Richland Distilling company, the
present largest sellers to the dis
pensary, according to the evidence.
Then the question was asked Col.
Mixson if he knew of any change in
the business methods Of this firm.
1t was all insinuation and suggestive,
but as can be seen it does not go
further. The evidence of Col. Mix
son went on to show that Mr.. /. w.
Boykin. at present a member OF the
board, at one time represented Lana
han & Sons in this state, but Col.
Mixson made it plain that Mr.. Boykln
did not represent this or any other
firm while a member Of the state
board, or while an inspector.
There was great deal of spice in
the evidence of COL Mixson and es-
pecially in his contrast of the ortho-
dox business methods and strict COM
pliance whit he law ten years ago, as
compared with the present admins
tration, as viewed by him Wednesday.
Of course there will be some who
may Suggest that Col. Mixson may
be disgruntled and that he left the dis
pensary under the cloud of the lndls-
cretion of others connected with him.
He was never accused of making a
cent for himself out of the dlspen-
sary and he had never given any evil
dence Of t.
But whatever that may be, as long
as his evidence is undisputed it is
vital, material and forceful. At the
) afternoon session there came near
being jail affair. 1t was accidentally
developed that Col. Mixson had let
tiers from Kelley & company in which
there were suggestions as to how he
might better push the sale of their
goods. or something to that effect.
Mr. CASTOR at once appreciated the
possible value of these letters and
wanted them produced Col. Mixson
took the position that they were pri-
vate i business letters. and he de-
clined produce them unless COM
Dclled do so. and even then he
wished think the matter over and
| 1 ,eo1 Nrecerc Won and