The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1906-06-13

tude to ldessrs. Lyon and Christensen
for the manner in which they have
worked on this investigation and ne
stated most positively that he does
not know how they became aware OF
the fact that he was in possession OF
any information. He was very much
surprised when they tried to get some
facts from him.
When the committee met yester-
day morning, Mr.. Lyon put Mr.
Parker on the stand. Mr.. Parker de-
clined to testify to conversations
which bsd occurred between himself
and a. second party. who had stated
that he had had to pursue unusuaf,
nsthods to get business from the
state dispensary. After good deal
of parleying, Mr.. Lyon moved that
the witness be placed in arrest until
such a time as he would answer the
question. This was agreed to by the
committee. Mr.. Praker evidently
had been looking for such move as
this and he had his attorney, Mr.. Il.
r Havnsworth, of Greenville, with
him. Mr.. Haynsworth already had
had prepared a writ Of habeas corpus
and it was agreed to argue the merit
of this motion before the State Su-
preme Court at o'clock, the court
having agreed to sit for that pur-
pose.
Mr.. Fraser and Mr.. Castor were
delegatetl to represent the commit
tee in the argument before the Su-
preme Court. The court heard the
arguments at the time appointed,
and, after celebrating not over half
minute, decided that the writ OF
habeas corpus should not be issued
and that the witness, therefore,
should answer the questions pro-
pounded.
Mr.. Haynsworth made fine pre-
sentation of Mr.. Parker's side of the
case. but the feature Of the hearing an
the Supreme Court was the address OF
Mr.. Fraser to the court, in which he
described clearly and strongly the
duties of the committee. Mr.. Castor
followed Mr.. Fraser, and Mr.. Hayns-
worth made an argument in reply.
Chief Justice Pope, after mo-
ment's consultation with the other
members Of the court, announced
that the writ Of habeas corpus should
not issue-in other words, that the
witness should remain in the custody
Of the committee until he should
purge himself of contempt by COM
plying with the will Of the commit
tee.
The members of the committee,
with the exception Of Senator Hay
and Senator Blease, had voted at the
| morning session to require the wit
| ness to testify. The Supreme Court
thus decided in favor Of the posi-
ton taken by Messrs. Lyon and Chris
tensen. Yesterday afternoon the
| relevancy Of certain bit Of testi-
nnony was questioned, and Mr.. Spivey
was the only member Of the COM
rnittee who agreed with Mr.. Lyon
and Mr.. Christensen in this. The is
sue was as to whether or not Mr.
Parker should testify as to the iden-
tity of the agent Of VIM. Lanahan &
Son in this state appointed some time
| last year. Mr.. Parker declined to
testify further than to state th:-t the
man was some kind Of official, al
| though not state official nor dis
pensary official.
The substance Of Mr.. ParAer's tes-
| timony in reference to what Mr..
Lanahan said to him is as follows:
He C1anahan) said that he was
convinced that it took more than the
merit of the liquors to do business
with the state dispensary. He said
that the dispensary bought cheap,
mean liquor. He said that it cost
money to do business with the board
in 1904 and 1905, and he could not
afford to pay what had to be paid
He tod Mr.. Parker enough to make
him say that the conversations inn
piled that rebates were paid to gel
orders.
He told Mr.. Parker that cat the
last letting of contracts, which had
just passed, there was n it for the
members Of the board Of control not
less than $1,000. Later on Mr.. Park
er explained that Mr.. Lanahan said
that the regulation rebate appeared
to be IS a barrel on orders, and he
was not competitor with his goods
on that basis.
Mr.. Lanahan is quoted as having