Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1912-10-08
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1919.

was meagre. What did say was that
the account or report Of your report as
1t appeared in the State was very
meagre. have no doubt but that your
report was very full and complete, GER
tainly as complete as it could be under
the circumstances, and my letter does
not undertake to say that 1t was not
full In any particular.
with regard to the Ben Briggs mat
ter: You take the position that be-
cause I wouldn't make an affidavit in
respect thereto that / withheld infor-
nation from you. With all due respec
and without intending to be discourte-
Gus, beg to say your position Is alb
surd and ridiculous. 1t Is fact, as you
state, that I voluntarily told you that
had heard that one Ben Briggs had
voted at Yorkville No. 2, and II Is
further fact that / stated to you also
that had heard that he had been a
resident Of Florida for seven years and
had only come to South Carolina about
February Of this year, and 1t Is a fur
ther fact that stated to you that in
tended to prosecute him, although !
don't remember whether I fixed any
specific date for so doing or not. I did
not prosecute him for the reason that
when I started to do so I was informed
that he had heard that I was after him,
and that he had left the state, or at
least had left York county. I gave you
this information verbally, and you were
cognizant Of the facts as fully and COM
pletely as was, and I told you every
thing that l knew about the case, and
yet because I didn't reduce 1t to the
form Of an affidavit, you take the posi-
tion that I withheld information.
must say that this is an exceedingly
remarkable proposition. Had desired
to withhold information, would have
told you nothing at all, and then II
would have been a clear case Of with
holding information.
Now, az to making an AFFIDAVIT:
did not make an affidavit to be submit
ted to your committee for the reason
that everything that knew was hear
say with regard to Ben Briggs, and I
did not think 1t proper that an ex parte
affidavit, containing nothing but hear
say information, should have been used
as any evidence upon which the fate of
an election should be decided. You
know, and every lawyer that knows the
first elements Of the laws of evidence
knows, that not even a yellow dog
would be convicted on evidence Of that
kind, and, had I made the affidavit, II
would have been incompetent and have
afforded no evidence that was compe-
tent in the controversy. Frankly, did
not propose to deliberately undertake
to offer evidence that knew conclu-
sively was not competent. II you lay
so much stress upon this kind Of evil
dence, you could very easily have filed
with your committee an affidavit set
ting forth the information that I had
given you, or could simply have in
In with
making an affidavit on 1t, and 1t would
have given your committee just as
much light and just as much compe-
tent evidence as If had made the af-
fidavit which you requested.
with respect to your statement of
the facts as to our conversation and
my turning over the poll lists to you:
I have to say that we are so nearly
agreed upon the material facts in the
matter that think 1t unnecessary to
comment on any little matters upon
which we might differ, as they are not
material. I do take exception to your
duty to have undertaken this work be-
ordered 1t to be done. You will please
remember that this was not a contest
over which the county executive COM
mittee had Jurisdiction, nor was 1t a
contest being heard by the county exc
cutive committee, but 1t was a contest
before the state committee, Of which
you, and not myself, were a member.
have failed to find anything in the con-
stitution or rules Of the party that re-
quire the county chairman, or even the
county executive committee, to under
take an investigation where the con-
test is before the state committee, and,
haI II raf 20 IN h tr,er af oil
would have been clearly within my
rights as a member and chairman Of
the county executive committee. But
you admit, as stated, that did offer
to supervise the work Of investigation
II you would be responsible for the pay
Of the men that I would have to hire.
Admitting this therefore insist that I
did more, or offered to do more. than
my duty and the laws Of the party re-
quired Of me.
IF, however, beg to say In conclu-
sion, the state executive committee are
to be the judges Of whether or not !
did my duty in the premises (although
/ do not concede that they have that
right), I beg to advise you that have
a letter from the state chairman In
which he stated that he is satisfied that
I did my full duty in the premises as
I always do. With this statement from
the state chairman and the facts In
the case as they have been properly
given to the public, I am content to
rest my case"
Wilson In Reply.
The Rock Hill Record yesterday has
the following from Mr.. Wilson to Mr..
Lewis in reply to the foregoing:
Dear Sir: Yours Of the 4th instant,
t.. % 1akk 80 n4k4 0,-I
received.
II desire to call your attention to
the fact that I did not give anything
for publication to the newspapers in
connection with my report to the in
vestigation committee but simply made
to the committee as complete a report as
possible on every county assigned to
me. You practically acknowledge that
my statement in regard to your declin-
ing to act in this connection Is correct
in every particular, and you could GER
tainly take no exception to my report
ing the facts in the matter. did read
your published letter carefully, and al
though you commenced same by say
ing that you did not know whether the
newspaper account correctly stated
my report to the committee, you pro-
ceeded to deal with my report without
knowing what it stated, making state
ments as to what 1t should have con-
tanned, and this without even making
an effort to get copy Of the report.
There was no reason whatever why I
should have voluntarily furnished you
a copy Of the report, as you had no
connection with 1t whatever, but GER
tainly would have done so had you re-
quested 1t.
with regard to the Ben Briggs mat
ter: Your statement to me in York
Vile was not that your information
was secondary-you did not tell me
that you had heard anything-your
statement was, that you had a man,
Ben Briggs, who had voted Illegally"
and giving me the facts as stated in
my last letter to you. I did not ask
you in my letter of September 10th for
hearsay Testimony In regard to this al