The times and democrat. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1881-current, 1911-03-28

=
Mr.. Fielder, as persons who would
give evidence for the State in sucn
actions as might be instituted: ".
D. Roy, B. M. Wilson, D. Weiskopff,
T. T. Early, C. W. Dudley and M. A.
Goodman.
On His Own Responsibility.
81 am unable to make the definite
statement that Mr.. Fielder suggested
that the persons above should not be
prosecuted. for the reason that |, as
Attorney General, have exercised this
power upon my own responsibility
and in accordance with my own judg-
ment.
referring to that part of your let
ter, which asks what civil actions
were settled or compromised and the
terms thereof, will say: That the
civil actions Instituted were in charge
of Messrs. Anderson, Fielder, Roun-
tree and Wilson, Mr.. W. F. Steven
son and Mr.. B. L. Abney, Messrs: An
ney and Stevenson having active
charge and management thereof. Mr..
Stevenson has furnished me the fol-
lowing list OF civil actions, which
have been compromise The actions
were compromised for the payment
of money, the amount Of which is
stated opposite the names of the de-
PENDANTS given below:
Gallagher & Burton, 1,395.94:
Lanahan G Sons, s14,083.46; Grab
fielder G. Co., $15,297.17; Roskam-
Gerstley Company, s3,O66.37; Freld-
man-Keiler Company, s1,5s5; Meyel
Pitts & Co., $3,437.50; Jack Grams
ton Company, sS02.21; American
Bonding Company, $500.
"In several of the above cases the
defendants had presented claims
against the State, which were disal-
lowed. Such amounts are in addi-
ton to the amount of moneys to
which reference is above made.
1.-THE Ac. OF 1910 authorized the
dispensary commission to make set
tlement of such claims.
Power to Offer Only.
Answering your inquiry as to that
part of the contract entered into be-
tween the State dispensary commits
sion and Anderson, Fielder, Rountree
and Wilson, wherein it is provided
that Anderson, Fielder, Rountree and
Wilson are clothed with full power,
subject alone to the approval of the
Attorney General of the State, to Of
fer any of the parties involved i'm
munity from prosecution, will say:
The power to offer immunity was
given this firm, but the power to
grant immunity, that Is, to refuse to
prosecute, or, in case of indictment,
to mol pros, was left as the law pro-
vides, in the discretion of the Attor-
ney General. In view of this power
of the Attorney General, this provis.
ion was inserted in the contract
Whether any person should not be
indicted, or if indicted, should have
the indictment against him, remains
so far as the contract is concerned
just as the law provides.
1.-The policy of the State to allow
immunity under the circumstances
may be fairly inferred from the Ac'
Of 1906, providing for the investiga,
tion of the dispensary, wherein it Is
provided that no testimony given b.
witnesses before the committee shall
be used against them in criminal
prosecution. This provision OF Law
was perpetuated and became a par
of the law under which the State dis
pensary commission was created
Acts Of 1907, page S35.) So it must
follow, independently Of the law Civ
ing such power to the Attorney Gen
eral, that such of those whose names
are mentioned above, who testified
before the investigating committee
or the State dispensary commission
practically have immunity undci' thi'
Act.
Attorney General Has Discretion.
"But aside from the manifest poll
CIV of the Legislature, as contained II
the above mentioned Act, the Attor
ney General has discretion as II
when, how and against whom to pro
ceed in criminal cases. He has th'
power to enter nolle prosequi e!
virtue of his Office, independently o
the Court. (Ency. of Law, %, page
275 and 276. State VS.. Howard, 1;
Rich Law, 274. State VS.. Mckee,
Bailey, 651). The rule is laid dowl
in the Mckee case that the prosecut
ing officer may enter nolle prosequ
at any state of the proceedings unit
the jury are charged: but he canno
do so afterwards, not at least in cas-
of an Indictment fer capital offence
and if he is permitted to do so its Ell
feet is the acquittal Of the prisoner
The above rule is also recognized il
! Archbold's Criminal Practice, vol
ume /, page 317.
"In Bishop on Criminal Procedure
second edition, Volume |, Sectiol
1920, it is said: If the prosecute
in the English practice wishes t.
make use Of one of the defendant
as a witness, the Court will permit
verdict Of acquittal to be taken a
once in his case, and thus he will b.
rendered competent. In our owl
States the ready method in such cir