The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1906-06-08
MR.. L. W. PARKER rEsT1F1Es.
His Testimony All Hearsay-Was
Put Under Azrest-He Refused
At First. 49, -.f

|
repeat what he remarked as private
conversation with Mr.. Samuel j.
Lanahan, the senior member Of the
firm of Lanahan & Son, of Balti-
more. In less than six hours the Su-
preme Court decided that Mr.. Par
ker must answer the questions. The
story Of this notable tilt is told else
where, and how Mr.. Parker exhaust
ed every honorable means to keep
from repeating what he regarded as
| purely personal statement. The
| Supreme Court heard the arguments,
and. without leaving the bench,
Justices Pope, Jones and Wood re-
fused the writ and held the evidence
competent. Then Mr.. Parker went
before the committee and related the
conversations he had with Mr.. Sam
uel j. Lanahan. Mr.. Parker, as
everyone knows. is careful man.
and is at the head of millions Of
dollars of invested capital in his vari-
Gus cotton mills, and his whole course
and purpose apparently was to be
cautious and conservative.
Mr.. Lanahan is at the head of one
of the largest and best known liquor
houses in America. He. too, is eau
tious business man. and has made his
millions. Mr.. Lanahan has sold the
dispensary more liquor in the aggre-
gate than perhaps any other one
firm.
Therefore it is to be appreciated
that the conversations about which
evidence was forced, were between
two entirely reliable and prudent
men.
Mr.. Lanahan to Mr.. Parker.
Now what did Mr.. Lanahan say to
Mr.. Parker7
He said that he was convinced
that it took more than the merit of
the liquors to d." business with the
State dispensary. He said that the
dispensary bought cheap, mean IL
Quor. He said that it cost money to
do business with the board in 1904
and 1908, and he could not afford to
pay what had to be paid.
He told Mr.. Parker enough to
make him say that the conversations
implied that rebates were paid to
get orders.
He told Mr.. Parker that cat the
. last letting of contracts. which had
just passed, there was in it for the
members of the board of control not
less than $1,000. Later on Mr. Par
ker explained that Mr.. Lanahan
said that the regulation rebate APP
peared Ia be - a barrel on orders.
and he was not a competitor with his
goods on that basis.
Mr.. Lanahan is quoted as having
offered t" sell the dispensary liquor
at from Il to 20 cents less per gal
Ion than it was buying at. if he did
not have t" give up anything. and
Chairman Evans told him that if
he did not like the form of bids Of
: the board that he need not bid at all.
Worsted the S. G. Man with a Pull.
Mr.. Lanahan tried repeated 10 get
Mr.. Parker t" suggest some South
. Carolina man with a pull To repre-
sent him. and finally secured some
one who held All official position 70
represent him.
Mr.. Parker declined to give the
name of this representative. and the
committee, by vote of to 3, de-
clined to order him to give the name.
Some suggested lie was a member of
the General Assembly. Mr.. Parker
thought this representative was paid
$4,000, but had never learned wheth-
er such representative had ever
gotten orders or not for Lanahan &
Son.
Had Arranged With Mr.. Boykin.
Mr.. Lanahan is quoted as having
told Mr.. Parker that "he had ar
ranged with Mr.. Boykin, one of the
members of the board of control, for
Mr.. Boykin to be his representative
on the board of control, and to see
to it that he got his share of the
business. He did not get the new
business, and Mr.. Boykin is quoted
as having said that che had not got
ten more satisfactory offer from
others, but that others were provid-
ing for other members of the family
than himself, and blood was thicker
than water, and that certain other
liquor house employed a brother-in,
law of Mr.. Boykin as special repre-