The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1906-01-19
FARNUM NOT IN CONTEMPT.
Supreme Court DiSmisSeS Rule Issued
Against Him in Connection with Dis
pensary Investigation


vened on Monday morning SAYS the
Columbia State. Mr.. ]. S. Farntn
was not present. Mr.. 7. Moultrie
Mordecai was in the court room as
the representative of Mr.. Farntun
and was called upon for a return to
the summons Of the court. Mr..
Mordecai made a very strong plea
for his client. When Chief Justice
Pope asked where Mr.. Faruum>
was, Mr.. Mordecai stated that he
could offer reasons sufficient to
show that his client had not been
guilty OF contempt Of court.
At the hearing last week. when
Senator Hay and Mr.. Lyon pre-
sented Senator Chrlstensens afh-
davit, they prepared formal or
der for the courts consideration,
this being not uncommon mode
of procedure. The order as pre-
pared designated that Farnmn
should be required to appear in
person and be examined before the
supreme court. However, as this
might be irregular in n1andanus
proceedings, the court struck that
requirement out of the order and
it was component for Mr.. Mordecal
to appear yesterday.
Mr.. Mordecai charged that his
client had not felt it necessary to
comply with the demands OF the
committee in regard to the letters,
and the committee itself has ad-
n,itted that it had not constitutional
rights to force defendant, for it has
applied for additional powers.
There was a lapse Of III days be-
tween the time the committee began
its inspection of Farnum's office and
the time the first motion was made
before the chief justice. within
that time defendant had sorted his
letters and had destroyed some.
Today he is willing to admit re-
ceiving such letter as that sug-
gested in the affidavit of Senator
Christensen, but under the penalty
of pain and punishment defendant
makes oath that he cannot now pro-
duce the letter of which Senator
Christensen says he made a copy.
Defendant denies having subscribed
to the Carolina Field fund.
Defendant says: II have nothing
else in my possession. [ have moth
ing which was not in that trunk
The letter to which Mr.. Chris
tensen's affidavit applies was, in the
opinion of defendant. a private let
ter anyway. 1t was directed to
Farnum personally as a political
nnatter-and all men in and out OF
office have a right to political inter-
ests. Farnum is not, therefore, IN
contempt for destroying a private
letter.
Why did the committee not re-
tain the letter? Why did they not
inform Farnum when they made
COPY and returned it to the files?
Otherwise it cannot be a part, OF
the proceedings at the day of the
visit of the committee. There is
nothing to show that it was in eN-
istence "a days later, when the COM
nittee applied to the chief justice.
The defendant, through his coun-
sci, claimed to come with "clean
hands and purged conscience" Said
Mr.. Mordecai: 1--WE have put IN
that trunk every letter except such
as on the 18th of May Farnun had
destroyed, believing them to be inn
material. We did not resist the
court. We might have exercised
the right of appeal to the United
States supreme court, but we did
not do so. We did resist this COM
nittee, for it had exceeded its con-
stitutional rights. We could bring
the defendant here, but he could
say no more to you than [ have
said
The court then asked if the at