The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-03-09

Lyon at Augusta, Ca, last night,
and published by the morn
ing papers, wherein the Attorney-Gen-
eral severely criticized the action Of
the Judge In appointing permanent re-
ceivers for the South Carolina dispen-
sary fund. created profound sensation
in this city. the Judges home. 1t is
stated tonight that representatives of
some OF the sultors Will call the at
tention of the court to the Attorney
Generals attack, and ask judge Pritch-
ard to hold him (the Attorney-GeneraD
for contempt OF court on the ground
that while reflections on the judges
personal character are not contempt,
the advice of Attorney General Lyon to
the commissioners to disregard the or
ders of the Federal court. directing the
deliverance of the dispensary fund of
100000 to the receivers. does In itself
constitute contempt, in that 1t tends to
actually interfere with the administers
ton of the court and to nullify its
powers.
Would Not Discuss Matter.
Judge Pritchard. who left this after
noon for Richmond, Va, with a stop
over at Washington. declined to make
any statement before leaving, saying
that 1t was not his practice to discuss
cases in his court.
Two local attorneys, who represent
listilling companies in the suits against
the South Carolina dispensary COM
mission. issued statement to the
press. wherein they handled Attorney
General Lyon without gloves. resenting
what they termed "a great injustice
done to Judge Pritchard." They also
declare that Mr.. LYONS statements are
wide of the truth
status of the Case.
The present status. of the dispensary
case is as follows:
When the dlspensary commission
created by the South Carolina Legis-.
lature to wind up the affairs of the
dispensary failed to agree with credi-3
tors who sold LIQUOR TO the dtspensa sary
as to amounts due. charging swindling
by creditors. George B. Lester. of New
York attorney for Fleischmann Com
pany, came to Asheville month ago
and filed with Judge Pritchard, of the
United States Circuit Court, bill in
equity, asking receivershlp for the fund
of 100000 left by the dspensary, and
a few days later Frank Carter, of
Asheville. and T. Moultrie Mordecai. of
Charleston, filed bill for the Wilson
Distillery Company and others, on
which Judge Pritchard issued tenn
porary restraining order. forbidding
the commission from disposing of the
fund or turning 1t into. the State
treasury.
Three weeks ago both cases were
argued. the Judge then declining re-
ceivers and taking under advisement
the question Of jurisdiction OF the
court, raised by the commission
through Attorney General Lyon ard
ground that the suit was against the
State itself. On his return from Rich-
mond. Judge Pritchard. one week ago,
announced he would take jurisdiction.
and hearing on application for re-
ceivership by the Wilson Company was
set for saturday last. On Friday ccun-
sci for the Wilson COMPANY and for
Fleischmann Company presented the
affidavit of George b. Lestes that the
Governor of South Carolina urged the
Legislature to take action to dsfeat
the Jurisdiction OF the court, and that
the Legislature would interfere with
the courts powers, whereupon ID. w.
Rountree, of Atlanta, counsel for the
commission. being here, was notified.
and was present at the hearing. other
counsel not having arrived for the next
days hearing. The court named all
five members of the commission as
temporary receivers. and on Saturday
Judge Pritchard announced the ap-s
DOIitJlleIll dS pTl iSSSi'NN-
James n. Mccullough. Greenvile, 5. c.
E. +. Arthur, of Union, S. G. and Q. h.
Henderson,, OF Aiken, S. c.
Denounced the Judge.
Attorney General Lyon on hearing Of
Ithls action denounced Judge Pritchard
and particularly his action IN naming
receivers prior to date set for arsu-
should be appointed Judge Pritchard
declines to make reply, but local at
Etorneys issue statement to the effect
THAT Rountree was given notice OF
ers Friday, and that they are South.
| ern Democrats" and that no Stated
rightS are involved.
Nv. F. Stevenson and d. w. Roun-
tree, of counsel for the commission.
stated that the question OF Jurisdiction
will be taken to Supreme Court OF the
| United States, contending that the suit
is really one against the State of South
unless 1t consents.
Writ of Error.
How the question OF whether or not
1.-The court has Jurisdiction is to be rats-
cd is not yet settled. Mr., Stevenson
later, but The thought it would be by
writ of error which could reach the
present term of the supreme Court. al.
though habeasf corpus following q res
Court would be more expeditions. II
Judge Pritchara should fine or I'M
prison n commissioner for failure to
obey orders, application could be made
lat Washington for writ of habeas cor
pus and immediate hearing had. prob
ably before Chief Justice Fuller.
The procedure would be the same as
when Messrs, Wood and Wilson ap-
piled to Judge Pritehard for this writ,
and decision was Immediate On tina
other hand, the writ OF error Is more
regular and the only objection to It
I is delay involved In getting n do
cision,
The attorneys for the commission
claim they have not used all thsir