The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1908-02-26

I have never had a communication
with him or any one else referred to
by Mr.. Blease with reference to my
testimony. except with Mr.. Avery
Patton. to whom, after having been
as witness before the
commission I wrote on
December 80, urging him mot again
to put me to the humiliation of ap-
pearins in matter about which I
know practically nothing" To this
letter I have had a reply and had
not seen Mr.. Patton until I appeared
before the commission few days
since.
Mr.. Blease asks the question why
waited until after Mr.. Lanahan's
death to answer the question as to
who Mr.. Lanahan had told me was
representing him in South Carolina.
agree with him that it was unfor-
tunate that the answer had to be
made subsequent to Mr. Lanahan's
death, but I had no choice in the
matter.
No one knows better than Mr..
Blease why the question was not an
swered two years ago at the time OF
the hearing before the legislative
committee, in June, 1905. 1t was
upon Mr.. Blease's own motion and by
the effort of his own vote that
was excused from answering the
question at that time, against the
earnest protest Of Mr.. Lyon, now
Attorney General, and two other
members Of the investigating com
mittee. Having been excused by the
investigating committee from answer
ing the question then, it certainly
would have been improper and incon'
sistent for me subsequently to have
rushed into print to make public
statements which had asked the
Legislative committee to excuse me
from making before them. Having
been excused then from disclosing
the parsonage referred to by Mr.
Lanahan, was not called upon tc
note any denial by him that MI
Blease was the person referred to
It will be noted, however, that Mr.
Lanahan never denied any part Of
the conversations referred to b. me
in my testimony. He merely denleo
that he had told me that Mr.. Blease
represented him, which at that time
I had not testified to before the com
mittee, because, as stated, had beer
excused.
Mr.. Blease certainly surprises me
however, in his statement to the er'
feet that he had no idea that l re
ferred to him in my statements be-
fore the Investigating committee
When I testified in June, 9O6, Mr.
Lanahan had been advised of m!
having been subpoenaed and Of ths
necessity of my testifying to my con
versation with him if the Court de-
creed that I should do so; further
more the attorneys representing MIR
H. H. Evans had been advised De
fore / testified of the purport Of %!
testimony.
AS the intimacy between Mr. Blease
and Mr.. Evans was well known,
had presumed that it had been com
municated to Mr.. Blease what N!
testimony would be.
This precaution was confirmed II
my own mind by statements OF Mr
Blease to me. On the evening Of my
testimony, whilst Mr.. HaynsWortf
and I were supping together a
Wright's Hotel, Mr. Blease, who hao
been taking supper at table soms
distance away, stopped at our table
a moment, and after expressing nj:
approval of the position I had takeI
with reference to testifying said II
effect that he was familiar with al
the facts with regard to the employ
ment Of the party referred to by me
by Mr.. Lanahan; that he had nc
apologies to make to anyone for Vot'
ing to excuse me from giving the
name. but that in justice to the part!
referred to he wanted to say tina,
that party had not undersood fully
the service expected OF Ii n when ne
accepted the employment, and Ener
he did learn what was expected
he declined to serve furthr, and re
ceived less than two hundred dollars
for his compensation.
I understood the statement OF Mt
Blease to be a diplomatic acknoWl'
edgement of his connection with the
matter, and, as, expressed in legaI
terms, "a plea Of confession ano
avoidance" Mr.. Blease now denies
that he had any connection with Mr.
Lanahan.
I may add that I am advised by
Mr.. VIM. Elliott of Columbia, who
was my attorney in the proceedings
before the Supreme Court, that Nj.
Blease made to him practically the
same statement as made above.
In justice to Mr.. Blease himself,
and in justice to the memory OF Mr.
Lanahan, Mr.. Blease is now, it seems
to me, called upon to say who was
the high State official" whom Mr..
Lanahan had employed. as he has
Acknowledged full acquaintanceshlp
in the matter. Whilst cannot con-
ceive that l have been mistaken as to
statements made to me by Mr.. Lana
ham. still il there be error in what
Mr.. Lanalan stated to me, Mr.. Blease
can clear it and should do so.
Respectfully,
Lewis A. Parker.
S. c., February Il, 1908.