The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1907-07-10
WHisKEY AGENT ARRESTED.
FL. L. SoIomons, of Columbia, Charg-
ed With Violating New Law.

| SOluLHOld, July 6.-t. u. SOl0HlOnS,
a well known representative of wfis-
key houses, was arrested here today
on the charge of violating Section 46
Of the Carey-Cothran law, which pro-
| hibits the solicitation Of business
from ary county dispensary board
| by any representative Of a whiskey
| firm. The arrest was made on a war
rant sworn out by Dispensary Audi
tor West, and is based on allegations
contained in an affidavit made by DR..
j M. G: Elliott, chairman Of the Beau
fort county dispensary board. The
warrant was served by Deputy Sher-
| if White, of Beaufort, who was ac-
companied by City Detective Broome,
of Columbia.
The Beaufort officer and his prison
er went to Beaufort this afternoon,
| where the preliminary will be held.
It is presumed that Solomons will ap-
ply for bail. His home is in this city.
In the affidavit made by DR.. Elliott
| it is stated that Solomons called on
the afhant and at another time sent
for him to come to DR.. ElIiott's Office;
| that Solomons gave him a sample OF
whiskey, which DR.. Elliott declined
to take; that Solomons said he -epre-
sented the whiskey trust, and among
the firms which he represented DR..
! Elliott recalled the name Of only the
Big Springs Distilling Company, Of
Savannah; that Solomons advised DR..
Elliott to visit this firm at Savannah,
and that he would be nicely treated
and receive valuable information.
The matter reached the ears Of
Senator Christensen, of Beaufort, who
wrote to Attorney General Lyon, and
the attorney general took it up with
Gov. Ansel. The governor instructed
Auditor West to go to Beaufort, and
to investigate the statements, and by
some good work Mr.. West secured
| the swhole situation, and obtained the
affidavit on which the warrant was
sworn out.
This is the first case that has been
brought under the stringent Section
3s of the new dispensary law, which
| makes it unlawful for any distiller,
| manufactures or brewer, Of any alco-
| holic liquors or any. agent or dealer
| in liquors, to approach, consult per-
sonally, or attempt to do so, any
memhas ef any county dispensary
board or any dispensary or clerk in a
dispensary regarding any whiskey or
| beer, for the purpose Of recommend
| ing it's purchase or for Influencing
said person in any way regarding the
purchase or use Of his goods. The
penalty is a, fine Of not less than 500,
nor more than $1,000, or imprison-
ment al hard labor for not less than
six months or more than two years.
In addition any firm Or agent con-
victed under this section is prohibited
| from doing business in this State, and
all county boards are forbidden, un-
der penalty, to do business with such
firm. It i:s made the duty Of the dis
pensary auditor to notify all county
boards Of any conviction under this
section.
It is possible that this is not the
only case Of the kind in the State, and
the result of the trial will be Of in
terest. It is understood that the mem
bers Of the Beaufort board were re-
| luctant to take the matter into the
courts. having given Solomons to un-
derstand that they proposed to oo-
serve the law. plainly, but was urged
upon them that it was their duty to
give the Information on which the
| prosecuting officials might act
News and Courier.