Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1912-07-19
IN DEFENSE OF NICHOLS

IN DEFENSE OF NICHOLS
VIM. M. Jones Discusses Other Side OF
the Dictasraph Matter.
The Columbia State of yesterday
contains the following from w. M.
Jones' an uncle of Mr.. Sam ]. Nichols,
touching the other side of the effort to
trap Governor Blease into the sale of a
pardon:
To the Editor of the State:
| In your Sunday issue you pub
tagraph testimony tending to prove
that Samuel ]. Nichols of the Spar
tanburg bar was a bribe-giver, and
that Gov. Blease was a bribe- taker.
You did not publish all the dicta-
grams. You made voluminous selec-
tions, but you left out smaller but
important sentences here and there
in Mr.. Nichols favor. Is the con-
science Of your telegraph editor clear
that in these eliminations he did not
purposely suppress the truth and dis
tort the facts and do a grave wrong,
| unworthy Of a great paper?
From the record prepared by the
paid enemies Of Gov. Blease, and pub
lished in the Augusta Chronicle as it
was presented to the commission, It Is
shown that A. s. Reed, hired ennis
sary of T. B. Fielder, came to Mr.. Mich
OILS, falsely representing that he was an
attorney from Chicago, that a large
fortune amounting to $600,O00) had
been left to a man in the South Caro-
lima penitentiary, on condition that he
could secure a pardon; that he had
been twice convicted and punished for
the same act, once by the United
States court, and then In the state
court, and also served a five years.
sentence in the penitentiary; that he
was sick-had appendicitis, and was a
proper object for executive clemency.
Mr.. Nichols Is recorded as saying:
| THE only way would take this case
| Is with you as associate attorney"
| You are much more familiar with the
case than I am" "The only thing
me-" The dictagraph records Mr..
Nichols as saying further: 1T isn't
pleasant. I'll tell you why hate to
take hold of 1t. have refused at least
seventy-five petitions that have come
to me to try to get pardons. Now here
in Spartanburg, they give me the very
devil for supporting Blease, because all
my affiliations are the other way, you
know, and all my kin people. Now,
I say hate to take hold of those mat
ters, because they have always been
against him, and have always sup
| ported him. and they say these corpor-
ations that I represent employ me on
| account Of my influence with the gov
| ernor, and the same way with these
pardons-they say, oh, it's nothing
but graft; he's making money out Of
it. But that's all damn lie. For that
reason I have refused numbers and
numbers Of them" And he goes on to
cite case after case where he could
have gotten large fees, but refused to
ask for the pardons because he did not
believe they ought to be granted.
Was II Corrupt
According to this mans own con-
fession, he represented to Mr.. Nichols
| that this was a meritorious case for
| executive clemency. Relying upon
| these representations, was there any
thing unprofessional or corrupt in
| assisting this attorney to lay the mat
| ter before the governor for his ac-
ton? 1t was strictly professional
work, and so regarded by the bar. 1t
| shows that Mr.. Nichols was unneces-
sarily careful in the pardons sought
| and would ask for none which he did
not believe the facts would justify. Yet
you cut all this out Of the record, and
| inserted instead the eX parte statement
Of this man, made In Mr.. Nichols alb
| sence and unknown to him, that the
| convict was the worst in the peniten-
| tiary. Why did you do this thing? Did
you wish to mislead the public into be-
lieving that Mr.. Nichols had corruptly
sold his influence with the governor to
secure the release Of such a convict,
knowing him to be such? The record
was full of the proof that Mr.. Nichols
| acted in perfect good faith, relying on
| the statement Of one whom he had
| every reason to believe was reputa-
| BILE attorney. And that even hen he
would not assume responsibility for the
case, but refused to go into 1t except as
| associate counsel, leaving all the re-
sponsibility for the facts with Mr.. Por-
ter as leading counsel. All this Is in
the record. Why did you suppress it?
Certainly, not for lack of space, for
you published much else that had far
less relevancy. Why did you do it?
Was 1t right? Was 1t just and fair
and true and in accord with the high
ideals of honorable journalism? A
great journal has great possibilities
for good or harm and high responsible
tiles attend it's power.
Even Reed, the paid emissary Of
Fielder, the spy, who sells his truth
and honor daily, left all this in the
record. But you have deliberately cut
it-not in one place only, but repeated
ly and persistently-in small sections
and paragraphs Why did you do It?
The dictagraph records that Mr..
Nichols told this associated attorney
that he would carry down a petition
which the people who signed it would
be justified in signing 1t, and that he
would not go before the governor
without such a petition. That Porter
then suggested that he represent to
the governor that there was a good
deal involved-and before he could
finish his sentence, Mr.. Nichols broke
in Here's what I will tell Blease
if,I go down there with this petition,
l will tell him the facts and circum-
stances They think Blease
Is taking graft. That's a damned lie.
Blease has never received a cent
since he has been governor" He told
Porter: You can do absolutely moth
ing in the matter by paying" He
wouldn't do anything that wasn't
right and / wouldn't do anything that
wasn't right"
"Wild Words"
All this appears In the official rec
ord. but you cut 1t out wherever 1t
appeared, and instead you published
all the wild words alleged to have