Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1912-04-19
LYON AND THE GOVERNOR.
They Are Not Exactly In Accord as to
Bank Examiner Proceedings.

The News and Courier Of Wednes-
ence between Attorney General Lyon
and Governor Blease as to the matter
of determining whether Rhame or
Fraser Is bank examiner:
Lyon Letter to BIease.
Attorney General Lyons letter to
Governor Blease follows:
State of South Carolina,
Attorney Generals Office, Columbia.
j. Fraser Lyon, Attorney General; I;
M. P. DeBruhl, Assistant Attorney
General, April 16, 1912. Governor G..
L. Blease, Columbia, 8. C.-Dear Sir:
This is to advise YOU that have COM
menced a proceeding in the supreme
court to test the right Of B. j. Rhame
to continue to exercise the office OF
bank examiner In view Of this litiga-
tion l shall ask that you inform me
Just what procedure you. had In the
matter of his removal as well as the
facts and law upon which your action
was based. I desire to have this. In
order that your views may be fully
presented to the supreme court, and
that the court may have the benefit OF
all the information on this subject pos
sessed by you. Yours very truly,
(Signed) J. Fraser Lyon,
Attorney General.
The Governors Reply.
The reply of Governor Blease to the
attorney general was as follows:
State of South Carolina,
Executive Chamber.
Columbia, 8. c., April 16, 1912.
Mr.. ]. Fraser Lyon, Attorney Gener-
al, Columbia, 8. C.-Dear Sir: Your
letter of this day received.
In reply, / noticed in the papers
that Mr.. Rhame had commenced suit
against the state treasurer for March
expenses, and that you had served the
papers upon the state treasurer. l
took II for granted that you were ad-
vising with Mr.. Stevenson what pro-
cedure Mr.. Rhame was to take. Later,
noticed in the papers where proceed
oust Mr.. Rhame from office. This
procedure was brought without any
consultation whatever with me, and
without any consultation with or re-
quest from Mr.. Fraser, and l again
presumed that you and Mr.. Stevenson
were advising and agreeing upon a
plan. I, therefore, employed the Hon.
B. L. Abney and the Hon. George X.
Rembert to file a petition with the su-
preme court and to take charge or
Mr.. Fraser's interests in the matter.
He (Mr. Fraser) being the present
state bank examiner and being state
official, l felt that 1t was my duty to
protect his interests; and, to be per-
fectly frank with you, l do not think
the proceedings which you brought
were brought in the interest OF my
self or Mr.. Fraser, because every one
knows that when Mr.. Rhame present
ed his expense account for March that
Mr.. Jennings should have paid II
without a word, as he was most as
suredly entitled to his expenses and
salary up to April /, 1912. at which
time he was formally removed from
Office.
Messrs. Abney and Rembert pre-
sented petition to the supreme court
this morning-which petition they
presented to the court before the re-
ceipt of your letter by me- / presume
the court will act thereon, and that
they will allow Mr.. Fraser to come IN
and defend title to his action. This
will be looked after by the attorneys
I have just mentioned above.
l will, also, place In their hands all
nv reasons for removing Mr.. Rhame,
the law upon which 1 relied, and all of
the original papers, in order that they
NAV be informed and be able to make
thorough investigation Of the law and
present the same to the court.
This being my position in the mat
ter. I beg leave to advise that l pre-
sumo that II Is unnecessary for me to
furnish you with any facts or law up
on which my action was based.
Very respectfully,