Fort Mill times. [volume] (Fort Mill, S.C.) 1892-current, 1908-02-13

Represents Two Houses.
Senator Weston said that it 1.

1
penalty that men in public life pay
to be misunderstood by some goot
men and to be misrepresented b,
some bad men. He had no apoligie,
to make to any member of the senate
or to any nwspaper man or anybody
else for his professional conduct. He
had been honored by, the people OF
Rfchland county for many years and
1t Is for them to say whether his con
duct meets with their appreciation
He stated that the law firm with
which he is connected, Weston & Ay.
cock, represents two OF the liquor
houses which have claims pending
before the dispensary commission,
but no man could say, he declared
that his vote or his actions in the
senate were influenced by such rela-
ttons. He said that one of the houses
he represents placed their claims in
his hands bfore the commission was
established, the New York aud Ken
lucky Distilling company.
Senator Christensen's Criticism.
Rising to question of personal
privilege, Mr.. Christensen said:
Il too, am an editor and during
the sessions of the legislature have
occasion to comment on events in
the legislature. I have commented
in general way on the situation
discussed by the senator from Claren-
don in his paper and the senator
from Richland, who has just taken
his seat.
1T is my belief that the senator
from Richland has not acted in any
way inconsistent with his ideas of
what is right and proper. But 1
disagree with him and have said so
and propose to condemn his course
again If l think proper. He repre-
sents some of these liquor houses
whose claims are being investigated
and some OF the ex-State dispensary
officials who are under indictment
and thinks it proper and right as
State senator to oppose in the senate
the bill to provide the attorney gen.
eral with funds to prosecute his
clients. 1 disagree with him and
to put myself on record here
Snator Raysor's Statement.
Senator Raysor said that he re-
GREETED that it was necessary for him
to raise a question of personal privi-
lege, but he felt compelled, under
the circumstances, TO enter his pro-
test against the charges contained in
the newspaper clipping which had
been read.
He said he voted against the Otis
| resolution because he considered it
unwise. but he had publicly proclaim
ed from the floor of the senate that
he would vote to give to the attorney
general any amount OF money he
needed in the prosecution OF cases
arising from the investigation or the
affairs OF the State dispensary.
He thought that the attorney gen.
eral should be given all the assist
| ance necessary in these matters-in
justice to the State and to the men
under indictment the charges arising
from that investigation should be
| aired; the authorities ought to go
to the bottom of them.
He said that he had never repre-
sented a whiskey house in any claim
before the dispensary commission
and he does not represent any OF the
parties who have been indicted as a
result of the investigation OF the af-
fairs of the dispensary. He said he
had been approached by one man
who was formerly connected with the
State dispensary and although this
man was a lifelong personal friend
and he has confidence in his integ
rity he refused to consult with him
until after the adjournment Of the
legislature.
Senator Sinkler Warns Up.
Senator Sinkler also rose to a
question OF personal priviledge and
made some very caustic references
to the publication in question. He
said that he voted against the OTIS
resolution because he considered 1t
improper for the senate to pass such
resolution when the act OF the gen
eral assembly OF South Carolina is
before a court for Interpretation.
But" he declared, 'if any man
imputes to me wrong motives for vot-
ing as l did on that measure, or
charges me with being recreant to
my duty to the State, that man hath
not fig leaf to cover his naked in
decency and 1T would be base" fiat
terry to call him a dog"
A Further Explanation.
Senator Applet thonght he could
clarity the atmosphere to some extent
by explaining that this article appear
ed long before the Otis resolution
was introduced and so far as he
knew before that resolution was ev-
er contemplated. No reflection was
intended upon any member for hav-
ing voted against that resolution as
1t would have been quite impossible
to cast such reflections in advance of
the introduction of the resolution
and before the vote was taken. He
had simply been given information
contained in that article and got the
information from a source which
could be relied upon.
Resolution offered.
Immediately upon the senate re-
convening at 4 o'clock in the after
noon, Senator Smith of Hampton Of
fered the following resolution:
Whereas, certain allegations have