The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1906-07-20
WANTS EVIDENCE
ON WHICH TO PROCEED AGAINST
CERTAIN OFFICIALS.

YIN WhAOh ~ GlSOCGED ASAlNSI
CERTAIN OFFICIALS.
Attorney. General Youmans Gays That
Lanahan Has Denied Parkers
Testimony.
Mr.. Leroy It. Youmans, attorney
general, was instructed by Gov. Hey.
ward about month ago to proceed
with prosecutions against certain dis.
pensary officials. Mr.. Youmans has
been Ill since that time. Wednesday
day he wrote to Gov. Heywary, in Of
fect, that he could not proceed on the
testimony which the supreme court
ordered Mr.. Parker to give before the
Investigating co nmittee. Following is
the letter to Gov. Hayward:
Dear Sir: 1t was stated In the 90.
lumbia State of June 8th that "the
announcement was made yesterday
chat Governor Hayward had notified
the attorney general, Mr.. Leroy It.
Youmans, to proceed with criminal
prosecution against dispensary OH.
cials, suspected Of misconduct by rea-
son of the testimony Of Mr.. Lewis w.
Parker"
Tue testimony Of Mr.. Lewis W.
Parker referred to ia to be fonnd In
the Issue OF the State of June 7th.
On tue receipt Of Jour letter, L had
conversation with you, in which |
stated my Views In regard to the most
important fundamental legal proposi.
6ion connected with the matter.
AS the announcement referred to In
the issue OF The State OF June 8th
has been often iterated and reiterated
withouG any mention Of what tran
spired In the conversation between
US, think 1t proper to state in writ.
ing briefly the position / then took,
and to which still adhere.
1t will be seen by reference to the
testimony Of Mr.. Lewis w. Parker.
alluded to-, that 1t consists In the main
Of portions Of what was said to him
IN conversation by Mr.. Lanahan,
who Is citizen and resident of Mary
land, and whom our criminal courts
lave no power to compel to testify to
ihe matters which Mr.. Parker says
Lsnahan told him. So much of the
statement as relates to misconduct on
she part of dispensary officials, con-
lists solely Of what Parker says Lana.
IAN told him (Parker) as having bsen
communicated TO him Nanahan) b,
L' w. Byokin, member Of the dis
Jensary board.
| did not then think, and / do not
now think that anything revealed by
,he testimony Of Mr.. Parker afforded
5euabie ground on which any proseou.
tion proper and necessary to vlndicate
The law could be instituted against O.
dispensary oflicial.
Pssrt.ss ctiaxg cd V. stss NJ seaassass~,
sion Of such offenses as are spoken OF,
can legally be arrested only on war.
rants issued upon probable cause OF
che commission Of those tffsnses sup
ported by oath or Affirmation. (Oon
stitution, art, 1 sec 16) A warrant
is q precept under hand and seal OF
person authorized to take up any Of
tender to be dealt with according to
iue course of law; Ia properly issua
ole now upon affidavit, which aflldavlt
must accompany the warrant.
A prosecution at this stage Of the
ifair, based on the testimony given
would, In my Judgment, be premature5
ill.advised and unwarranted 1t will
ba remembered, too, that In the very
carefully prepared resolution, by
which the legislative committee was
| appointed to Investigate the State dis
pensary, the committee Is to report It's
indinRs to the general assembly. What
| to hn hal 10
fore this committee J., Of course, can
not anticipate. have 80 often seen
lll,advised and premature prosecutions
result IN the miscarriage Of Justice
that ] have found 1T very unsafe to
depart from established precedents
and we'll established practices. AS j
understand from your letter, the In.
yestigating committee has made no
report to you OF this matter, and what
you saw In the public prints produced
before the investigating committee as
the result OF ruling Of the supreme
court, is the manner In which the sub.
jecG was brought to your attention.
| When the conduct Of Black was re
ported to you by the Investigating
committee, as there was no aflidavit
| Va p"ciii \ az NloOQ you IOt
TO take any steps looking to his re-
moVal as mem oer OF the board until
There had been at leagt an anidavit
ol 8worn statement of what objection.
able action 1t was stated that Black
had been guilty. On being informed
OF this by you, the atlldavit was al
once supplied. see no reason, II a
prosecution Is to be instituted in this
case against diSpensAry Official, why
1t should be taken out Of the domain
Of the general and well. established
law. 1t Is perhaps worthy Of remark
In this connection that the pres,
which Informed us Of Parker's testi
mony, informs us also that Lanahar
does not agree to the version made
before the Investigating committee.
Very respectfully,
LEROY &. YOUMANs,
Attorney General.
Seven Girls Drownod.
at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, seven girl