University of South Carolina Libraries
VS9 VOL. XLIIL NO. 123 NEWBERRY4 S. 0., TUESDAY OCTOBER 24, 1905.TWCAWEK$10YR TESTING BRIGE LAW Ni FEDERAL COURT DISPENSARY ADVOCATES AT TACK BRICE LAW. Judge Pritchard Grants Order Re quiring Board of Control of Union County to Show Cause Why Dispensary Should not be Reopened. -Asheville, N. C., October 19.-Unit ed States Circuit Judge J. C. Pritch;ard today issued an order directing R. M. Fincher, W. D. Wilkins and Elzie Kelley, the Union county board of control, to appear before him October 31 to show cause why mandamus should no7t be granted to J. G. Howell, requiring the board of control to open - the dispensary in Union and to rein state Howell in the office of dispenser, and give him possession thereof. This action, whioh constitutes a test of the Brice bill, is 'brought by J. G. Howell, the relator, through Bellinger & Welch and John -G. Capers. The application to Judge Pritchard was made by those attorneys. Columbia, October ig.-R. H. Welch and John G. Capers, represen ting J. G. Howell, dispenser at Union, appeared before Judge Pritchard at Asheville to-day and obtained an order for a hearing in the case brought against the Union -county board. of control, charging them with violating the consitution of South Carolina and the United States for thle enforcement of the Brice law. The petition sets forth in part as follows: J. G. Howell, relator, vs R. M. Fin cher, W. D. Wilkins and Elzie Kelley, as the county board of control for Union county, respondents. The relator, J. G. Howell, would re spectfully show to the court: Section i. That* he is a resident and taxpayer of, and the owner of both personal and real property in Uuion county, Soubh Carolina, subject to taxation therein, -and the head of a family, 'having children of .stchool age, who are -duly attending the public schools of said county. Section 2. Thar the general assem bly of said state passed an act entitled "An Act to prohibit the manufacture of intoxicating liquors as a beverage witin this State, excep' as herein pro vided,"and approved December 24, 1892, and 'by its terms 'caking effect July 1, 1893. * ThesDispensary Act. Section 3. That thereafter the gen eral assembly of the said state passed ~an 'act, approved March 6, 1896, en titled "An Act to provide for the elec tion of the Stare board of control, and~ to further regulate the sale, use, con sumpt'ion, transportation and disposi tion of intoxicating and alcoholic li gours or liquids in 'S:ate and prescribe further penalties fpr the violation of . We dispensary laws, and to enforce the same," which was a general amendment by way of substitution to ihe above mentioned act of 1892, whic'h act, as amended from time to time, was incorporat'ed int'o the Crimi nal Code of 1902 of said state, a print e'd copy of the sectcions of which con taining t'he same is hereto annexed as Exhiabit A, Section 7, of th!e Act of 1896, being 'Section 563. of said Crimi nal 'Code, and is as follows: (Here the dispensary law is quoted and the Price law.) Section 5- That the state of South Carolina is divided into forty-one counties, among which are Union, Marlboro, and Greenwood. Union and Marlboro 'having been established and organized as counties prior to July 1. ~893, the -date upon wh'ich the dispen 'ary law hereafter referred to, went, into effect, and Greenwood 'having been formed and established as a county in 1897. *Section 6. :That prior to July ;, 193, "-the sale of alcoholic liquors was prohibited" by law in the county of Marl-boro, while in the county of Union prior to said date the sale of alc'oholic liquors was permitted by law. Section 7. Thtat in the said counties of Greenwood and Marlboro no dis pensary for The sale of alcoholic Ii quors has ever been established or ex isted under said dispensary law above referred to. Section 8. That by virtue of the authority of the last amendatory act albove quoted, commonly called the Brice bill, amending Section 7, of the Act of 1896, above referred to, and found as Section 563, of the Criminal Code of South Carolina, 1902, an elec tion, was on the-day of-, 1905, ibeld in the county of Union., whereby was submitted the question of dispensary or no dispensary to the qualified elec tors of said county, and at such elec tion the majority of the ballots cast declared against dispensary, where upon the dispensaries already estab lished and exis-ting in said county were closed, in accordance with the provisions of said Act. Section 9. T,hat the respondents, R. M. Fincher, W. D. Wilkins and Elzie Kelley, prior to the times hereinafter mentioned were duly elected and qual ified as the -county board of control for Union county, under the dispen sary law, and have ever since been and now are, such county board of con rol, R. M. Fincher being chairman, and W. D. Wilkins being secretary of the said board. Section io. That your petitioner, on or about the 18th day of Maroh., 1905, was duly elected for the term of one year -dispenser for the dispen sary located witbiii the town of Union, in said county, taking possession of said office on or about April i of said year, his term then -beginning, and re ceived his commision from the gov ernor of the state for the said office on the 27bb day of June, the said year, and coiftinuing to exercise the powers and duties and to receive the emolu ment's thereof until -rhe-day of-, 1905. Closed The Groggery. Section 11. *That the respondenits, as such county board of control, act ing solely under what they consi-dered to.'be their duty, and who as t'he result of said election, under and by virtue of the 'said Brice bill, abov- referred to, and by direction thereof, and with out any pretence of any charge of misconduct on the part of the relator, did, on the-day of-. 19o5,*close the said dispensary, located in the town of Union, dispossessed the relator of his said office and t'he emolumentcs of the same, against 'his protest, and not withstanding the -fact that he was then ready and desirous of continuing pos session of said office and pe.rforming the duties thereof, and he is now de sirous aind willing so t.o do. That -he salary and emoluments of said office were fixed at eighty dollars, ($8o) per month. Section 12. T'h'at the relator re spectfully alleges an.d suggests to this Honorable Court that the said act of 1904 known as the Brice 'bill, is tin constitutional, null and void, contra vening Article XIV, Section I, of the amendments to the cotlstitution of the United States: First. In that it deprives The tax payers of Un'ion county of their prop erty without due process of law. (A.) Because the said act is not a valid law of the state. inasmu'h as it levies a tax on all of the taxable prop erty- in certain counties for the en forc.ement of a general state law, and exempts from said levy other coun ties -placed in the same circumstances and unfder like condi:tions as to the diNpnsary law and the enforcement thereo f. Thus violating Article X, Section. &,of the constitution of thea state of South Carolina, wherein is provided "'the general assembly shall provide by law for a uniform and As To School Funds. (B.) Because the said act is not a valid law of the said state for the reason that it provides that any coun ty voting out a dispensary shall noi thereafter receive any portion of the surplus funds that may remain of the dispensa-ry school funds, after the de ficiencies in tihie various county school funds have been made up, as I)rovided by law, "but leaving the said surplus funds to be distributed among -che c-ounties retaining the dispensary, Marlboro and Greenwood counties, in which no dispensary has ever been es tablished-, which is in conflict with Article XI, Section 12, of the con 3titution of South Carolina. which provides, inter alia, that such surplus shall be devo'ted to public school purposes, and "proportioned as the general assembly may determine." There being now in the hands of the ;tate a large amount of such -said ;urplus funds, and which was there be .ore voting out the said dispensaries ,n said county, and in the surplus funds the citizens and taxpayers of ;aid county had a vested interest and )roperty right before the attempt was nade under the guise of law to de )rive them of the same. (C.) Because 'the said act is not a ralid law, for the reason that the gen ral assembly -has a~ctempted to enact i special law concerning a subject where a general law could be made ipplicable, thereby violating Article VII, Section 34, of the constitution o-I South Carotina, where it is provided n Subdivision X:I where a general aw -can be made applicable no special aw shall be enacted." "Equal Protection." Second. In that it denies to all >ersons of Union county and of all )ther counties ithat have or may 'here ifter vote out the said dispensary, ,hereunder the equal protection of -he law: (A.) Because the said act evies a tax of one-half of one mill .-pon every dollar of the value of the :axable property in said county, and in !ve.ry other county vo,ting out the lispensary tihereunder, for the purpose >f defraying the expenses of the en orcement of the said dispensary law :herein, ,thereby attempting by its rery terms to levy a tax upon the tax rble property of certain counties to fefray the expenses of the enforce nient of a general state law therein ~nd exempting fi-om sai.l levy other :ounties placed in the same circum ~tances and 'under like conditions as o the said dispensary law and the en ~orcement 'there, thus violating Ar icle X, Section 1, of the consitution >f South Carolina wherein is provid ~d: "The general assembly shall pro ride by law for a uniform and equal -ate of taxation," etc. (B.) Because in the county of Jnion and other counties voting out :'he .dispensa'ries for the enforcement >f the General St'ate dispensary law, vhich prohibiits the sale in any part of :he state, of alcoholic liquors, except n dispensaries, the state levies a spe :ial and continuous tax on all prop ~rty for defraying 'the expenses of the ~nforce'ment of the dispensary in said :ounty, and protecting the persons :herein from violations of said dis 'ensary law, whereas, under and by :he general provisions of said law, e 'persons within the counties of 3reen'wood and 'larlboro, where no lisp)ensaries have ever ibeen establish ed. and where no alco'holic liquors ~re legally sold, are afforded the pro :tction of said dispensary law, to zether with coumnties 'having dispensa -ies, without any special levy of tax ~s for the enforcement of the same, nor are they ,burdened with any other :oflditions for the enforcement of th same; t'hus denying to persons in Union -county the equal protection of the law aff' rded the persons in Marl boro and Greenwood county, although situated alike. Greenwood and Marlboro. (C.) Because said act provides 'that 'Any county voting- nout a dispensary shall not thereafter receive any por tion of the surolus funds t-%at may re main of the dispensary school funds, after the deficiencies' of the various county school funds have been made up, as provided by law, but leaving; the said surplus funds to be distrib uted among the counties retaining the dispensary, and Marlboro and Green wood counties, in which no dispen sary has ever been established, which is in conflict with Article XT, Section 12, of t;he constitu'tion of South Caro lina, which provides, inter alia, that such surplus funds shall be devoted to pu'blic schools and apportioned as the general assembly may determine," there being in the hands of the statel a large amount of such surplus funds and which was there .before the voting out of said dispensaries in said coun ty, in which said surplus funds the cir izens and taxpayers of said county had a vested interest and property right before the amendment was made under the guise of law to deny to them the proper proportion of said -fund, and to still give ic to Marlboro and Greenwood counties. and the oth er counties not voting out the dis pensary, said Marlboro and Green wood counties being in the same cir cumstances and under like conditions as to the dispensary law and the en forcement as the said county of Union and the other counties voting out the dispensary law. Subsequent Elections. Section 13. That in the counties ot Cherokee, Pickens, Newberry, York and Lancaster, Darlington and Mar ion, elections have already been held under said Act of 1904, commonly called the Brice bill. wherein was sub mirted to the qualified voters'thereof the question of dispensary or no dis pensary, and at said elections in said counties the majority of th-e ballots cast in each were found and declared to be against the dispensary. Where upon the dispensaries already estab lished and existing in said counties were closed in accordance with the provisions of said ac7. Section 14. That by reason of the closing of said dispensary located in town of Union, Union -county, to the office of dispenser of which t<h:e relator had been, as alleged hereinbefore, duly elected and commissioned for a term of one year, which term 'had not expired wheni said dispensary was so closed, and has not'now expired, and being dispossessed of his said office. and the emolumen-ts thereof. ever since said closing of said2 dispensary, the relator has been and is now being deprived of. the emoluments of said office and 'his property rights therein without due pirocess of law, contrary to Article 14. Section 1, of the .amend ment to the constitution of the United States of Ameri.ca, which, provides that no state shall "deprive any per son of life, liberty or property wir.h out due process of la-w." WhTIerefore, the relator prays that this Honorable -Cournt will issue its writ of mandamus to the said respond ents. R. Mv. Fincher, WV. D. Howell and Elzie Kelley, commanding them to open the said dispensary located in the town of Union, South Carolina. and to reinstate the said relator in his office and give him possession of thes ame, and for such other and fur ther relief as may be proper. -Signed. Bellinger & Welch. John G. Capers. attorneys for relator. No statement is made as to those back of this movement. A. H-. S. Mrs. Agnes W: Quarles, widow of R. P. Quarles, of Abbeville county. died at Tumbling Shoals, Laure ns coumly. at the home of ther daughter. Mirs. WV. B. Sullivan, last~ Thursday at the adivanced age of ninety years. G. Raymond Berry t.he absconding superintendent of educa.tion of Marion cou;zy, has been returned from Tam pa. Florida. and lodged in the jail at Marion. T-here are about fourteen true bills retu,rned against him on quite a number of charges, chiefly A. C. JONES TALKS ON PROHIBITION IS OPPOSED NOW AS IN PAST TO ALL NOMINATIONS. He Does Not Object to Voting Out the Dispensary Under Brice Law and Is not Opposed to Local Option Principle. Newberry, October 19.-In view of the conference n1hich was held re cently in Columbia by the prohibition ists and in view of the fact that Mr. A. C. Jones was not present at this conference, and in view of the further fact 'chat 'Mr. Jones has for a long number of years been a consistent pro hibitionist and was active in matters pertaining to the advancement of the cause, and in view of the,still further fact that Mr. Jones announced him self several months ago as a can.di date for governor, your correspondent called on hinr and asked him if he had observed that the prohibitionists had been holding a conference in Colum bia, and that one of them whosat tended this conference had, in the pub lic press, called upon the Hon. Joseph A. McCullough, of Greenville, to make the. sacrifice necessary to make the race for governor, and that another member of this conference, also an editor, had endorsed this suggestion, and claimed to have done so several months ago. Mr. Jones was asked if he would care to make a statement, or if he had anything to say in reference to this conference, and what his atti tude as a candidate for governor would be towards the prohibitionists organizing, suggesting and putting forth a candidate for governor. Mr. Jones -readily consented to talk and replied as follows: "Yes, I read tihe newspaper accounts of it, and while I don't know positive ly who called itt I think it was called' by Mr. Joel E. Brunson's friends. I noticed -that Mr. C. C. Feattherstone, Joseph A. McCullough., James A. Hoyt, the Rev. Louis J. Bristow, John L. McLaurin and Mir. W. H. Wallace composed the caucus. A Former Convention. "Mr. Brunson has never forgiven me for obeying the state democratic executive committee in 1898, when I as chairman of the prohibition dem'o ratic state executive committee, was informed that 'the suggestion of the candidates 'by the State Prohibition convention was contrary to and in violation of t*he constitution of the democra'tic party of the state. You will remenmber that before this 1898 convention met a number of the pro hibitionists wrote to the members of thie stare democratic executive com mittee and the anembers of the United States senate and House for their opinion as to whether they had the right to meet in convention and sug gest a ticket to be voted for by the prohibitionists in the 'democratic pri mary. :A majority of th.ese, replying to them, told them that tlhey did. I warned them against such action'at the time, and told them that a new oommit:ee would ~be elected in the spring or early summer, and that that new committee would say that the ticket suggested or nominated by them would be declared irregular and would have to be withdrawn, and that it would be a mistake to do it. The convention was -held and a ticket sug geted, and I was electe'd to succeed Mr. L. D. GChildls as the chairman of the state prohibition democratic exec utive .committee. The State Demo cratic c :nvention me: very soon af :erwards. elected a new committee, as I predicted, declared the suggested ticket of the prohiibitionists irregular and in violation of the constitution. "Thie State executive committee saw nothing they could do (as they were all democrats) but to withdraw the suggested candidates, and to leave e.hm free to bhecome .candidates as in