Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1908-02-21
PARKER BACK AT BLEASE.
GreenviIIe Man Talks Interestingly
About Lanahan Matter.

GreenviIIe Man Talks Interestingly
About Lanahan Matter.
The following from Mr.. L. w. Par
ker of Greenville, was published in the
daily papers of the state last Wednes-
day morning:
Please pardon q few words in an
swer to Senator Cole l.. Blease In his
recent remarks In the state senate
with reference to my testimony before
the winding-up commission.
The absurdity Of the charge Of con-
spiracy as made by Mr.. Blease must
be apparent. but there may be some
conditions not understood by all.
| Neither Capt. Smyth nor myself was
| a supporter Of Governor Ansel In the
recent campaign. For myself, though
had the highest personal regard for
him, differed with him on the issues
of the campaign and voted for another.
l have never had communication
with him or any one else referred to
| by Mr.. Blease with reference to my
testimony, except with Mr.. Avery Pat
ton, to whom, after having been sub
| poenaed as a witness before the wind
| Iing-up commission, wrote on Decem-
| ber 80, urging him mot again to put
me to the humiliation Of appearing in
matter about which I know practi-
cally nothing" To this letter 1 never
had a reply and had not seen Mr.. Pat
ton until ! appeared before the COM
mission a, few days since.
Mr.. Blease asks the question why l
waited until after Mr.. Lanahan's death
to answer the question as to who Mr..
Lanahan had told me was representing
him i'm South Carolina. l agree with
him that it was unfortunate that the
answer had to be made subsequent to
Mr.. Lanahan's death, but l had no
choice in the matter
| No one knows better than Mr.. Blease
why the question was not answered
two years ago at the time Of the hear
ing before the legislative committee,
in June, 1906. 1t was upon Mr..
Blease's own motion and by the effect
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 investigat-
ing committee. Having been excused
by the investigating committee from
answering the question then, 1t certain
| ly would have been improper and in
consistent for me subsequently to have
rushed into print to make public state
ments which had asked the legislative
committee to excuse me from making
Defore them. Having been excused
then from disclosing the parsonage
referred to by Mr.. Lanahaa, was not
called upon to note any denial by him
that Mr.. Blease was the person refer
red to. 1t will be noted, however, that
Mr.. Lanahan never denied any part
of the conversations referred to by me
in my testimony. He merely denied
that he had told me that Mr.. Blease
represented him, which at that time
| had not testified to before the COM
mittee, because, as stated, l had been
excused.
| MIR Blease certainly surprises me,
however, in his statement TO the effect
that he had no !dea that / had refer
red to him in my statements before
the investigating committee. When
testified in June, 1905, Mr.. Lanahan
had been advised Of my having been
subpoenaed and Of the necessity Of my
testifying to my conversation with him
| If the court decreed that / should do
senting Mr.. H. H. Evans had been ad-
vised before 1 testified of the purport
of my testimony.
| AS the intimacy between Mr.. Blease
and Mr.. Evans was we'll known, had
presumed that 1t had been communi-
Gated to Mr.. Blease what my testimony
would be.
This presumption was confirmed In
my own mind by statements Of Mr.
Blease to me. On the evening Of my
testimony, whilst Mr.. Haynsworth and
were supping together at Wrights
Hotel, Mr.. Blease, who had been TAX
ing supper at a table some distance
away, stopped at our table moment,
and after expressing his approval Of
the position had taken with reference
| to testifying, said in effect that he was
| familiar with all the facts with regard
to the employment Of the party refer
red to by me by Mr.. Lanahan; that he
had no apologies to make to anyone
for voting to excuse me from giving
the name, but that in justice to the
party referred to he wanted to say that
that party had not understood fully
the service expected Of him when he
accepted the employment, and when
he did learn what was expected he
declined to serve further, and received
less than two hundred dollars for his
compensation.
1 understood the statement of Mr..
Blease to be Il diplomatic acknowledg
ment Of his connection with the mat
| ter, and, as expressed in legal terms,
"a plea of confession and avoidance"
Mr. Blease now denies that he had any
connection with Mr.. Lanahan.
1 may add that am advised by Mr..
VIM. Elliot, Of Columbia, who was al
so my attorney in the proceedings be-
fore the supreme court, that Mr..
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 IL seems
to me, called upon to say who was the
| high state official" whom Mr.. Lana
han had employed, as he has acknowl-
edged full acquaintanceship in the mat
ter. Whilst / cannot conceive that
have been mistaken as to statements
made to me by Mr.. Lanahan, still II
there be error in what Mr.. Lanahan
stated to me, Mr.. Blease can clear 1t
and should do so.
Respectfully,
Lewis w. Parker.
4