The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1911-06-07
LYON ANSWERS CHARGES.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAKES
DIGNIFIED REPLY.
He Asks That Supreme Court Decide
Right OF Board TO Name an After
ney.

%. IdstT Lyon,
attorney general. answering the gen.
Neral charges OF the new dispensary
commission yesterday in letter
mailed TO the secretary OF the COM
mission. called attention to some of
tht serious mistakes and misstate-
ments that have been made by the
members OF the commission. The at
torney general shows in his letter that
the commission charges him with not
performing certain duties that should
be left to the commission. The let
ter Of the attorney general is clear cut
and dignlfied.
Several days ago the commission
sent a letter to the attorney general
In which II was charged that he was
partisan to T. Il. Fielder Of Atlanta,
and that he could not be depended on
to act with fairness I'm the work Of
the commission. The commission en-
played the firm OF Holman & Holman
OF Charleston as attorneys for the
commission. and $500 was paid. The
hrm was named without the consent
Of the attorney general. which, II IA
claimed. is in violation OF the law.
The letter OF the attorney general
follows:
state Dispensary Commission, Colum-
bia. s. G.
Gentlemen: Your letter informing
me that you have employed an attor-
ney for the commission without my
approval is at hand.
II Is not Necessary at this time, and
can serve no useful purpose. to point
out all your erroneous statements in
regard to my position and attitude to-
ward your commission.
Whenever you have called upon n, I,
and you have done so several times. /
have freely given such information as
possessed. and stood ready to ad-
wise you upon any question of law
upon which you might desire advice.
on several occasion have person
ally offered you my official services,
indeed I have gone so far as to state
that II would give me very great
pleasure TO assist you to investigate
and probe any matter In connection
with the late State dlspensary.
Why you should think the fact that
I approved the employment OF Hon.
I. u. Fielder by your predecessors in
Office should disqualify me for per.
forming my official duties. or should
be sufficient reason for you to dis
regard the law as TO employing coun-
sci Is difficult 10 perceive. especially
as you have indicated your willingness
TO employ Messrs Abney and Steven
son. who were the immediate asso-
ciates of and employed by Mr.. Fielder.
Whether II was wise or not 10 employ
Mr.. Fielder can scarcely affect the
question OF the wisdom or unwisdom
Of employing Mr.. Holman at this
time. for even a small fee.
In IN connection will say. how
ever, that the State dispensary, re-
garded from strictly mercantllc
standpoint. was insolvent when aboI-
ished. But most largely through the
efforts OF Mr.. Fielder and his asso-
Gates the institution was enabled u
pay its debts and turn about $4OO.-
600 into the state treasury. In addi-
tion 20 this II was largely through the
efforts o. Mr. Fielder that evidence
was obtained sufficient 10 show be-
yond reasonable doubt the criminal
acts II number OF persons i'm con
nection with the former state dispen-
sary. II an association which has
accomplished these things is offensive
TO you. then II would appear that YOU
are not in favor Of accomplishing the
object for which I have striven dur
ing the past five years. Mr.. Feldcr's
compensation was contingent upon
the amount OF money he saved and
recovered for the State. and ne un-
dertook To bear. and did bear. all ex-
pense incident TO his efforts i'm oh
taining evidence while you. as | un-
derstand. have paid Mr.. Holman $500.
and this, rs I presume. without his
having secured the return Of any
graft money % tho treasury. I gath
er from your lcttcr that Mr.. Holman
IL employed solely TO give YOU counsel.
and this service has been for some
time past rendered without expense
60 the State.
Besides this. you have not attempt
ed to state any fnct TO me which
would show the necessity Of employ