The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1911-03-28
pose no1 to prosecute him.

in any manner overlooked; | Will ad-
wise you upon the ascertainment
thereof I cannot say definitely, but
am of the impression that among
those whom I have agreed not to pro-
secute the following were suggested
by Mr.. Fielder, as persons who would
give evidence for the State in such
actions as might be instituted: ". D.
Roy, B. NJ. Wilson, D. Weiskopf, J. T..
Early, C. ". Dudley and NJ. A. Good
man.
On His Own Responsibility.
'I am unable to make the definite
statement that Mr.. Fielder suggested
that the persons above should not be
prosecuted, for the reason that I, 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, dhich asks what civil actions
we're settled or compromised and the
terms thereof, will say: That the civil
account of which is stated opposite the
Messrs. Anderson, Fielder, Rountree
and Wilson, Mr.. W. F. Stevenson and
Mr.. B. L. Abney, Messrs. ADney and
Stevenson having active charge and
management thereof. Mr.. Stevenson
has furnished me the following list of
civil actions, which have been COM
promised. The actions were compro-
missed for the payment Of money, the
account of which is stated opposite the
names Of the defendants given below:
Gallagher & Burton, s11,595; Lana
han & Sons, s14,OS3.46; Grabfelder &
Co., s15,297.17;Roskam-Ge -Gerstley COM
pany, s3,Oe6.37; Friedman-Keiler
company, s1,5S5; Meyer-Pitts & Co.,
s3,437.50; Jack Cranston company,
S802.21: American Bonding company,
$500.
F'In several of the above cases the
defendants had presented claims
against the State, which were disal-
lowed. Such amounts are in addition
to the amount Of moneys to which ref
erence is above made.
"The act of 1910 authorized the dis
pensary commission to make SETTLE
nent of such claims.
Power to Offer Only.
Answering your inquiry as to that
part of the contract entered into be-
tween the State dispensary commis-
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 offer
any Of the parties invoived immunity
from prosecution, will say: The pow
er 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 provides, in the dis
cretion of the attorney general, this
provision was inserted in the contract.
Whether any person should not be in
dicted, or If indicted should have the
indictment against him, remains so
far as the contract is concerned, just
as thelaw provides.
"The policy of the State to allow
immunity under the circumstances
may be fairly inferred from the act OF
1906, providing for the investigation
of the dispensary, wherein it is pro-
vided that no testimony given by wit
nesses before the committee shall be
used against them in criminal prose-
cution. This provision of law was
perpetuated and became a part of the
law under which the State dispensary
commission was created. (Acts Of
1907, page 1851 So it must follow, in
dependently of the law giving such
power to the attorney general, that
such Of those whose names are men
toned above, who testified before the
investigating committee, or the State
dispensary commission, practically
have immunity under this act.
Attorney General Has Discretion.
ftBut aside from the manifest policy
of the legislature, as contained in the
above mentioned act, the attorney gen.
eral has discretion as to when, how
and against whom to proceed in GRIM
inal cases. He has the power to en-
ter a nolle Drosequi by virtue of his
Office, independently of the court.
(Ency Of Law, p, pages 275 and 276.
State VS.. Howard. Is Rich Law, PA.
Stata VIC Mexico Roi1oy 631l This