The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1915-07-28
OBJECTS TO LYON
DOMINECK ASKS HIN TO DROP
OUT OF STATE CASE
SUSTAINED BY Court
Assistant Attorney General Raises
Objection to Participation OF At
torney Employed by Governor and
the Tax Commission - Attorney
General Not Conferred With.


General Not Conferred With.
The injunction proceedings in the
cases of Peoples bank Of Greenville,
the National Loan and Exchange
bank of Greenwood and w. T. Bailey
of Greenwood against the State tax
commission was heard at Laurens
Thursday afternoon before Associate
Justice R. C. Watts, took a rather
sensational turn when Assistant At
torney General Dominick objected to
the association in the case OF j.
Fraser Lyon, employed by the gov
ernor and the chairman OF the tax
commission. without consulting the
attorney generals office.
The court sustained the position Of
the attorney general and Mr.. Lyon
took 10 further part in the proceed
,, ings. The attorney for the complain
ants and the assistant attorney gen
eral presented voluminous arguments
for and against the issuance Of the
injunction.
Judge Watts took the matter under
advisement and stated that he would
hand down his order as soon as prac-
| ticable, intirnating that it would be
cone within few days. The COM
| Ilainants were represented by F.. B.
(irier of Greenwood and T. P. Goth
ran of Greenville. Mr.. Dominick ap-
| neared for the State.
The incident Of Mr.. Lyons elimi-
! nation from the case at this time was
the more dramatic because Of its sud-
denness. Mr.. Lyon had apprised the
court Of his commission in a few
words when the assistant attorney
general abruptly arose and made OBJ
lection to the appearance Of the spe-
cial attorney in the case on the
ground Of lack of legal authority and
the embarrassment it might cause
the States interest.
Mr.. Dominick made the point that
it was prerogative Of the attorney
generals office to conduct the case
and that outside legal services could
be procured only upon the consent OF
the department. Mr.. Dominick stat,
ed that the department had been en-
ployed in a study Of the case and II
was fully prepared to make the an
swer.
Furthermore, he said, the attorney
generals office was not in possession
Of the points that the special attor'
ney might raise and that without this
knowledge he would not be willing tc
risk the States interest.
In making his ruling on the case
! Justice Watts cited the law that the
attorney generals office was empow,
cred to employ assistance wheneve!
the occasion warranted and that
without specific authority elsewhere
it was the sole prerogative Of the at
torney general to employ help.
Mr.. Lyon thereupon raised the
point of the special fund Of two thou
sand dollars appropriated by the last
general assembly for legal services tc
be expended by he governor but Jus
tice Watts was not impressed by this
contention. Mr.. Lyon made request
of the presiding judge that in writ
ing the order in the case mention be
made that he had appeared there as
the representative of the tax com.
mission and the governor.
Mr.. Dominick requested that il
also be included in the order that the
attorney generals office had not been
consulted about the matter. Mr
Lyon arose and stated that in justice
to himself he wished to have it in,
cluded that Mr.. Jones, the tax com
mission chairman, in retaining him
had informed him that the attorney
generals office had been consulted.
Mr.. Dominick replied pointedly
that Mr. Jones had not requested thai
Mr.. Lyon be employed. There was q
dramatic silence followed shortly af-
terwards by further statement from
Mr.. Dominick that both the governor
and the chairman Of the tax commls-
sion had been in his office and had
asked his opinion as to the outcome
Of the case but had not made any re-
quest for legal assistance.
Mr.. Lyons name had been men
toned, he said, as having been con.
suited about the merits Of the case,
but he unequivocally declared that no
request had been made of the attor-
ney generals office to engage Mr..
Lyon in the case. Repeated refer
ences were made in the tilt about
factional and political differences.
Mr.. Lyon stated that he was acting
only in legal capacity and was ap-
rearing upon what he considered
proper legal authority and that his
appearance in the case was moi