The French Broad hustler. [volume] (Hendersonville, N.C.) 1896-1912, 1906-03-08

A second Letter.
The denial of W. g Hyams and an at-
tempted defense of Mr.. Pritchari by cer-
tain Asheville lawyer. brought forth o
second letter from Mr.. Anderson. 1t IL .
s.warm member like unto the flrss and ap-
pears In full.
AmdoRDoM's RO5@AndOR.
Editor OF The Citizen:
My letter. which appeared in Saturdays
issue of your paper, contained the follow
ing paragraph:
''But W. 8. Hyams, clerk Of the United
States court at this time, and private sec
retary to SenstorJ. @. PritchArd At that
time, asked the district attorney not 70
prosecute his son-in-laW, and the district
attnrney needed hlS request, aDd allowed
Green.to GO fFes.. aad sald he did noe pros.
ecute him because he wAs related 70
Hyams."
To this paragraph W. 8. Hyams replies
In Sundays issue. a. follows:
s"The statement contained in H. 8. An
derson's letter of this date to the effect that
DistrictlAttorney Holton refused to lndict
nv son-in-law, Mr.. Green, on account Of
the fact that ] was Senator Pritchard'G o
secretary, 10 willful and deliberate false
hood"
Who is Mr.. Hysms speaking for3 For
the district attorney evidently, and not for
himself. Ayams seems to understand the
secret workings of the district attorneys
mind % knowledge which never claimed
60 possess) because he says that District
Attorney Holton's refussl to indict tiny
sOu-in-law was not because / was Pntch-
aFds private secretary" Since Mr.. Hy-
ans knows the workings Of the district at
torney's mind, will he please give Us the
benefit of this knowledge. If Green was
not prosecuted because he was Hyams'
son-i in.law. will that gen tleman please give
US the true reason why MIR. Green was not
indicted? My Hyams, In his answer, has
denied nothing, except that Holton's re-
! fusal to indict Green was not because
Green was Hy ANS son-in-law nor because
Hyams was Pritchards private secretary.
Asks Questt ems.
Now, Mr.. w. Fl. Hyams. will you please
answer the following questions upon af-
fdavit? for give you fair warning that ]
am prepared to prove what I have said.
First: Have you q son-in-law named
Green? Was it reported by reveAue officers
Sans and Knaipe, that Green, a sworn and
bonded officer, was caught carrying spirits
from the cistern room of government dis
tillery. where he was on duty as store
keeper gauger. to the retail house of the
distiller9 Was not the dlstiller indicted
and convicted for this ohense, and Green
allowed to 90 freer Why was the distiller
convicted and Green not prosecuted at all:
What was Holton's motive in not prose-
cutting Green? Did you not say in pres
] ence of certain gentlemen whose name
will be furnished on request) referring to
Green, that you had saved the id rascal
from the penitentiaryP Did it take any
thing more than your intrinsic virtue as 0
brother-in-law of Mr.. Pritchard to do thisi
| Did 1t not take q little cash also? Do you
know, or do you not know, that Mr.. Hol'
ton said that he would not prosecute Green
Efbecanse he was your son-ln-l law? And
{ how does it happen that you know more
4 Gbout Holton's motives than he knows
Ihimself?
Now. please answer the foregoing ques.
rtio0s categoracally and specifically and we
| will soon see who the llar is.
In my letter published IN Saturdays Is
sue OF your paper, refer TO the facs that
Senator Pritchord, while United States
Senator had appeared before department
of the government. and that in so doing be
| violated the Law. further said that die
not think that there was any intentional