The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1911-03-29

that among those whom / have
agreed not to prosecute the following
were suggested by Mr.. Fielder, as
persons who would give evidence Tor
the State in such actions as might he
instituted w. ID. Roy, Il. NJ. Wilson,
ID. Weiskopf. II. Il. Early, c. w. Dud
ley and M. A. Goodman.
II am unable to make the definite
statement that Mr.. Fielder suggested
that the persons above should not be
prosecuted, for the reason that 1, as
Attorney General. have exercised this
power upon my own responsibility,
and in accordance with my own
judgment.
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, Round
tree and Wilson, Mr.. w. +. Steven
son and Mr.. b. l.. Abney, Messrs.
Abney and Stevenson having active
charge and management thereof. Mr..
Stevenson has furnished me the fol-
lowing list Of civil actions. which
have been compromised The actions
were compromised for the payment of
| money. the amount of which is stated
opposite the names of the efend-
ants given below:
Gallagher & Burton. $11.,595.94;
Lanahan & Sons. $i4,OsS.Ai6; Grab
fielder & Co., s15,297.iz,; Roskam-
Gerstley Company, ss,oSs.S7; Freid-
man Keller Company, $1S5S5; Meyer
Pitts & Co.. s3.437.5O; Jack Cranston
Company, sSOs.21; American Bond
ing Company, $500.
"In several Of the abovej cases the
defendants had presented> claims
against the State, which we've disal-
lowed. Such amounts are in addit-
ion to the amount of moneys to
which reference is above made.
"The Act of 1910 authorized the
dispensary commission to | make
settlement OF such claims.
Answering your inquiry as to that
part of the contract entered ini to be.
tween the State dispensary colmmis.
sion and Anderson. Fielder, Y,ound,
tree and Wilson, wherein it is jprovid.
ed that Anderson, Fielder, Aaound.
Tree ana wilson are clothed with full
power subject alone to the a(pprova
of the Attorney General of th4, State
10 orer any or the parties Involved
immunity from prosecution. wtill say
| The power to offer immunity was
given thls hrm, but the pdwer tC
grant immunity, that IS 20 relfuse L
prosecute or. in case OF indit t,tment
to mol pros, was loft as thcl law
provides in the discretion Of die At.
| torney Gen raj. In y,cw Ok hi.
power Of the Attorney GeneraA. thi.
provision was inserted in the conA ract
Whether any person should no(t b,
indicted. or II indicted should jhav,
the indictment against him, renf,ain.
so far as the contract is concef ned
just as the law provides.
THE policy of the State to al low
immunity under the circumstance.
may be fairly inferred from the (Ac
or 1906, providing for the investiA ga
tion OF the dispensary, wherein i'll 4
provided that 40 testimony given b,
| witnesses before the committee SIN al
be used against them in a crimi1f, a
| prosecution. This provision Of la y
| was perpetuated and became q pal r
OF the law under which the StaHt
| dispensary commission was create IA
(Acts Of 1907. page $3.50 So it mu(s
follow. Independently OF the law gil v
Ing such power to the Attorney Get Ia
eral. that such Of those whose nam&,
are mentioned above WHO testified be
fore the investigating committee, d,
the State dispensary commissions
practically have immunity under tHi
Act.
But aside from the manifest poli&,,
OF the Legislature, as contained in II IA
above mentioned Act. the Attorn b.
General has discretion as to whom
how and against whom to proceedR II
criminal cases. lie has the powerN t
enter nolle prosequi by virtue o
his office, independently OF the CouHrt
(Ency of Law. 90. pages 275 al
276. State VS.. Howard, 10 Rich La0,
ga. State VS. Mckee, 1 Bailey. 651.S
The rule is laid down in the McK4
case that the prosecuting officer ma
enter a nOlle prOseuI at anv state oy