Fort Mill times. [volume] (Fort Mill, S.C.) 1892-current, 1908-02-20
SERIOUS CHARGE.
Senator Blease Said to Have Rep.
resented a Liquor House.
AN AFFIDAVIT READ.

MIR. l.. w. Parker swears That s r
Lanahan Told Him That He Had
Employed Senator BIease to Re
present His Firm Before the State
Board OF Control.--Blcase Read nm
Aihdavit from Lanahan Denying 1t.
Testimony which the Legislative
investigating committee OF 1905 de-
clined to bring out was developed bv
the commission to wind up the
affairs of the State dispensary
at Columbia on Thursday when
Messrs. Lewis ". Parker and Ellison
n Smyth were put on the stand and
related conversation with Mr. s
j. Lanahan. of Baltimore. In 1905
In regard to the employment OF a
prominent politician" to represent
the Lanahan firm before the State
board OF control. Mr.. Parker said
that Lanahan in prior conversation.
when Capt. Smyth was not present
had said that Hon. Coleman l..
Blease was the agent referred to.
1t Is understood that Mr. Blease.
who is now and has for four years
been State Senator from Newberry.
and who was candidate for Governor
year before last. has an affidavit
from Mr.. Lanahan denying that Mr..
Lanahan made the statement attrib-
uted TO him. He said that he had
read 1t during the campaign last sum-
mer on the stump at Union. and that
1T was published at that time. He
showed the original affidavit. which
he has kept pinned in his inside
pocket.
Those familiar with the dispensary
Investigations will recall that two
years ago the Legislative committee
to investigate the dispensary sum-
moned Mr.. Parker TO appear and ne
realted In substance the conversation
with Mr.. Lanahan, but when pressed
by Mr.. Lyon to give the name OF the
prominent politician he declined to
do SO. AS Mr.. Parker challenged tho
power OF the committe to make him
answer, case on habeas corpus pro-
ceedings was brought in the Supreme
Court and the Court decided that
the committee had the authority to
require Mr.. Parker to answer its
ed not to exert it's authority and Mr.
Parker did not answer the question.
1t has been common knowledge,
however, that the suppressed name
of the alleged agent OF Lanahan was
that OF Senator Blease, and this
knowledge evidently reached Senator
Blease himself. as he took the pre-
caution to get an affidavit from Lam
ahan, and it is fortunate that he did.
since Mr.. Lanahan died about two
weeks ago. The commission to wind
up the State dispcnsary had already
summoned Mr.. Lanahan.
When they testified Thursday Mr..
Parker and Capt Smyth made II plain
that they did so unwillingly and on
Iy yielded to the recognized authority
of the commission, which has the
same authority as the Legislative
committee as decided by the Supreme
Court.
1t is not worth while to say who
Messrs. Parker and Smyth are; they
are the leading two cotton mill men
in South Carolina, and their char
acters and regulations need no bols-
tering.
The Lanahan Affidavit.
Following is the affidavit read by
Senator Blease at the campaign meet
ing in Union on August II. 1906.
State of Maryland, City OF Balu-
more.-Personally came before me
Samuel ]. Lanahan, who, being. duly
sworn. says that he never told Lewis
w. Parker, or any other person, that
Cole l.. Blease was In his employ
to look after his interest in the whis-
key business in South Carolina, and
as a matter of fact, he did not have
Cole l.. Blease so employed.
Augustus w. Bradford,
NOTARY SeaD Notary Public.
Mr.. Blease also read at the Union
meeting amdavits from Jodie Nj.
Rawlinson. John Black, JOS. B. Wy
lie. III IL Evans, John Bell Towill and
L. w Boykin. dated either August
3. 1906, or August 4, 1906, and each
of which stated that during the af-
fant's term of service as director of
the State dispensary cole l.. Blease
neither directly or indirectly solicited
business or asked that purchases be
made from Samuel j. Lanahan or any
other person engaged in selling whis-
key or other articles to the State dis
pensary.