The watchman and southron. (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, June 21, 1913, Image 7
MAY WITHDRAW NAMES.
SKMNt. VKfTTlON IS NOT AN
IRRF.YOtABLK ACT.
Court Deri*lmi? Hearing on tho Quow
Uon It-it-. .1 by Filing; of Counter Pe?
tition/t In tho Dl*|>cii*ary Matter Ro
tpK'-'iiiki Su|H*r*.l>M?r to fcrnsc Sig?
nature* or Petitioner* from Pro
lMs|H ii?Miry Petition.
The filing of a petition with the
County Supervisor in opposition to the
ordering of an election on the re-es?
tablishment of the county dispensary
and requesting that the names of cer?
tain qualified electors who had pre?
viously signed the petition favoring
the election le erased thorefrom. has
raised a poln. that has called for se
rioue consideration and has been
productive of wide differences of opin?
ion.
The supervisor has been advised by
some legal authorities that the coun?
ter petition has no standing and can?
not be considered. He has been ad
?lend also, that he has no authority
to erase from the pro-dispensary pe?
tition any name, althongh requested
to do so by those who signed It On
the other hand It Is contended that
those who signed the petition had the
right to change their minds and that
having notified the supervisor In
writing of their desire to withdraw
their endorsement of the pro-dispen?
sary petitions he Is bound to eraae
their names from the petition.
The committee that Is working
against the re-establlshment of the
dispensary has had the court de?
cision on this point looked up and
have submitted them to the county
attorney and supervisor. The decis?
ions that bear most directly on the
point in dispute are as follows:
Davis vs. Henderson and others,
12? Ky. p. 12.
"The first question presented for
our consideration Is:
HAS A PERSON WHO HAS SIGN?
ED a petition for a local option elec?
tion the right to withdraw his name
before the petition Is acted upon?
In the State of Ohio, where the pow?
er of ordering an election Is vested in
the City Council* of certain munici?
palities, the Supreme Court in Dutton
va Town of Hanover, 42 Ohio, St., 211
laid down tin following rule: 'While
euch petition Is under consideration
and before action thereon by the coun
II. signers thereof may withdraw
heir names from such petition and If
'hereby the number of names is reduc
d below the requisite number. It Is the
luty of the council to refuse to order
uch election.* The right of voters to
withdraw their names from a petition
'or the granting of a license was sus?
tained by the Court in Simpson va
Commonwealth, 97 S. W. 307 Law re?
port, wherein the court said: 'It Is
true that ten of this number had pre?
viously petitioned the court; to grant
the license, but they had the right to
change their minds and oppose the
granting of the license, if they saw"
fit to do so, and the County Judge
was In error when he refused to con?
sider their names upon the petition,
lie had no right to deny them the
privilege of eomlng into court and
etatlng to him that although they had
favored the granting of the license,
they had upon reconsideration, been
oprosed *to It.' The precise question
was before this court In O'Neal vs.
Newman. 126 Ky. (71. 20 Ky law re?
port. 891. and In discussing it the
??art said:
The County Judge could not order
an election on a petition signed by less
than the statutory number of voters,
and although a voter ha* signed the
petition, still he might, at any time
before tho petition wan acted upon,
withdraw hi* name and, If thl* left
leas than the statutory number, no
election c.oibl be ordered. The stat?
ute Is not *ati*fied if a petition signed
by a sufllcient number of voter* 1* filed
with the judge. Ti ere must be a suf
fient number of voters asking the
calling of the election. No one Is re?
sponsible for the co*t of the proceed?
ing but the petitioners. No one Is
required It make a deposit but the
petitioner*. If litigation enaues no
on* may responsible but the pe?
titioners. It would therefore be a
very harsh rub* to say that a person
who ha* signed such a petition eannot
withdraw rrom It before it is accepted.
monstrances against the granting
of licenses are frequently withdrawn
In county courts, although the writ?
ing has bee* filed with the county
' "urt. an<| tbere 1* m? sound reason
whs M rule should not apply
to a petition for an ? b < tlon under
the local option act before it as acted
upon by the eounty court. Counsel
for app*Hees insist that the fact* of
the foregoing ? a*?? and of the ea*e at
bar are *e different that the rub- above
anno'im ed should not apply. The
only difference between the two cases
Is this: In the former all the pe?
titioner* withdrew. while in the lat?
ter only a small numbei adthdreu
Hut Um counsel for appellees ? ..n
fend with great earnest new* that Ihe
proper rule i* the one laid down lis?
ts*? H'lpr.-mo Court of Arkansas In
Cotvht vs. Finch. 75 Ark., 114, whore
In the court held that, in the absent*.?
0)f fa? ts showing fraud, duress or im?
position, no signer should he permit?
ted to withdraw his name from a pe
I
tition, upon the theory that ho who
voluntarily nets on foot a proceeding
for the enforcement of a salutary po?
lice regulation in any community
should not he permitted to eaprielnus
ly undo his work. This rule, however,
Is not in harmony with our prevlouti
derisions, and we do not think the
reason assigned for its application is
sutllclcnt to the objections to the rule
itself. A petition is hut a formal
written request or prayer for a cer?
tain thing to he done.
II? who signs it must do so volun?
tarily; otherwise ho cannot he in the
attitude of making a request. The
signature of the petition is but cvl
dence of the request or prayer. In
tho absence of pnylhlng to the con?
trary, tho slgnatuie is conclusive.
But when the signer appears in court
and asks that his name he withdrawn,
he indicates that ho is no longer a pe?
titioner. To hold that he is, is simply
to make him a petitioner by a process
of legal coercion which is contrary to
the very spirit of a petition. We are
therefore of the opinion that the trial
court did not err in permitting the
petitioners In this case to withdraw
their names from the petition."
Bradwell vs. Dill, 70 / rk. p. 175.
In this case the lower court found
that the petitioners for an election to
prohibit sale of liquor in certain ter?
ritory had a majority over the re?
quired number of 149 although a pe?
tition 'signed by 287 of these persons
had been tiled usklng that their names
be omitted from the petition for elec?
tion.
The court finding as a matter of
fact "after petitioners had presented
their petition, defendants filed appli?
cation of 287 persons whose names
appear upon the prohibition petition,
asking that their names be withdrawn
from such petition and not counted
thereon. The petition for prohibition
was presented to the county court on
DecemVr 31, 1900 and said applica?
tions wore llled January 1, 1907 and
after the petitioners had presented
their petitions and rested their case.
The lower court held as follows:
1. "A person signing a petition for
prohibition has the right to have his
name erased from such petition at
any time b? for? the same Is present?
ed to the ourt."
I 2. 'The time of presentation men- 1
tioned in the foregoing declaration
means tho time the court begins ju?
dicial investigation of the matter 1
prayed for In such petition, and not
tho time of mere filing such petition."
3. "r.efore presentation,anyone de- '
siring to have his name removed or
omitted from the prohibition petition !
after slglng tho same may do so by 1
requesting the person having pos- 1
session and control thereof to permit '
him to erase his name therefrom,
and if upon such request, he he not
permitted to havo such petition for 1
such purpose, such request, although
refsed, will he sufficient to entitle him
to have hit name omitted from such
petition as a matter of right."
4. "This may be done by the per?
son asking to havo his name erased, 1
<9T one may do so at his request."
5. "Tho notices given In this case
Were sufficient in form and substance
to entitle tho persons whoso names
appeared thereon to have their names
omitted from such petition, where
each notice was given by them or
some one at their request, before the
presentation of the petition."
8T "Where an attorney has not boon
rquested by a person to represent I
him In a matter .the attorney cannot
assume such authority. The fact that
defendants employed agents to go out
among petitioners and request them
to withdraw thei.* names from such
nttltlOtt, of itself, will not prevent
such petitioners from withdrawing
their names, if they, in good faith, dc
aire it."
By Wottd J. "Appellants' contend
that one who has signed a petition
against license may change his opin?
ion at any time before the final ol?
der of the court without giving any'
reason for so doing and that If lie
notifies the court of his (hange of
Blind and dissents from the petition
before the final order, it Is sufficient,
however informal the notice may be;
appellee! Contend, on the other hand
that no signer of a petition can with?
draw his or her name from the \ e
tifion after it has been tiled in the
oounty oourl unless his or her signa?
ture was obtained by fraud or through
Ignorance ..n the part of the signera
The first, third and fourth propo
?Itlom "t Inn declared by the learn?
ed trial indge, are correct The sec?
ond is not the law. In Williams vs.
<'Hilms, im Ark. lie, it is ssld: it the
original signatures were obtained In?
telligent!) end without fraud,* and
have not been erased before presents
tion or sfterwnrdi by leave of tin
court, they fulfill the requirements ol
the statute. in McCullough vs
Bim k w. II B 1 A rk 11 I it is said
The presentstlon ol *? petition I*
in the nature of an election, and when
i
?h..inly court has nc|ed, ihr votes
hat i been cnet snd Ihc sie? lion returns
i 1
m ule." Tho word 'Presentation' as j
used In these decisions should he
construed to mean 'the Illing of the
petition.'
Treating the proceedings aa ana?
logous to that of an election, as is
done In McCullough vs. Blackwell,
supra, the ballots are cast when the
petition containing the signature is
filed with the clerk of the county
QOUrt. Continuing the analogy, when
the county court begins the Investiga?
tion to determine the result, the polls
are closed ,and the count of ballots
has begun and when order is enter?
ed the returns are made. Before the
liling with the clerk, when petitioners
adopt that method of presentation to
the judge, the petition is in the pow?
er of signers. Each signer may con?
trol his signature. It is not yet a pe?
tition in which the public Is interest?
ed. The matter is as yet in fieri, so
to speak.
But when the petition has been file?
with the county court, it has been
then delivered, presented to the
court, mads a court record. The pub?
lic has now become Interested in it. The
jurisdiction of the subject matter has
now attached.
In the absence of something in the
statute permitting it, no individual
signer, nor indeed all the signers,
could thereafter withdraw or erase
their names from the petition with?
out leave of the court, and the court
should not grant such leave without
some good cause shown therefor. He
who voluntarily sets on foot a pro?
ceeding for the enforcement of a sal
utary police regulation in any com?
munity shoultd not be permitted to
capriciously undo his work. He should 1
not be allowed to play fast and loose
with the interests of society. The
law makes no provisions for protests
and remonstrances, for signing and <
contra-signing. It only provides for I
the petition." 1
See also Sims vs. Rosholt (editors 1
notes) new scries L. R. A. vol. 11 Pg. 1
372. 1
COME UNDER PURE FOOD LAW.
Washington, June 17.?Probably <
the most radical and far reaching ex- 1
tension of the Food and Drugs Act '
since its enactment was made today, I
when Secretaries Houston, McAdoo i
and Redfleld, charged with enforc?
ing this statute, ruled that meat and
meat products In interstate or foreign I
commerce, which hitherto have been
exempted from the provisions of the <
pure food law, may be seized If mis- I
branded or adulterated. Beginning
at once, manufacturers of meat foods '
will be required to comply Strictly '
with the Food and Drugs Act as well
as with tho meat inspection law.
The action was taken on the i
strength of an opinion by Attorney 1
General McRcynolds. The three sec- I
retarles revoked a regulation adopted !
In October, 1906, only four months af- I
ter the passage of the pure food law I
which had prevented the department
Of agriculture, according to a state- <
ment today by Secretary Houston. I
"from instituting prosecution against I
manufacturers of meat foods under
the pure food law, or ordering sei/.- <
ures or prosecution for misbranding I
or adulteration of domestic meats."
Secretary Houston said he could <
not understand why meat and meat
products were not food In the sense 1
of the Food and Drug Act, or why I
his department could not seize bad,
sdultsratsd or mlshranded meat, once <
it had entered interstate commerce. 1
Therefore, he had sought the advice
Of the Attorney General. I
With tho regulation of 1006 re- i
voked the department can seise and I
prevent the sale of bad adulterated
meat once it has crossed the State
line and remains in interstate com?
merce. Under the new decision the .
Government can control meat foods
from the hoof to the retailer, subject :
only to the limitations of the power of
the Federal Government in inter?
state commerce. '
The department ll empowered to I
require all manufactured meat pro- r
ducts to conform fully to Its labelling
regulation und can enforce its pen?
alties prosecutions and seizures for
misbranding and adulteration.
Secretary Houston has .appointed a
committee to provide a plan for co?
operation between tho bureaus of
chemistry and animal Industry In ex?
ercising full control over meat and
meat products,
In giving bis opinion that the pure
food law should apply to meat. Attor?
ney General Me Reynolds said:
"Both statutes had the common pur
pose of preventing the shipment in
Interstate and foreign commerce of
impure and unwholesome foods. The
meal Inspection act is enforced only
b> i rlmlnal action. The food and
drugs set, on the other band, accom?
plishes its purpose, not by an inspec?
tion preliminary to transportation, but
i>\ making criminal the interstate
commerce m adulterated or mlshrand?
ed foods and drugs."
When a man admits that he baa
mature judgment, he is as old as a
woman who wants to stav home and
rest while everybody else is anxious
io go to church, Wilmington Stai
JOKER IN SUGAR SCHEDULE.
WOULD HAVE OPERATED AS
DUTY OF TWO CENTS PER
POUND.
Paragraph Discovered end Correction
Mnde?Error ems Due to Change
From Former Tariff Schedule?
Cotnmltloe Completes. All Sched
nles and Issued <'all for Caucus.
Washington, June 18.?An eleventh
hour discovery that the sugar sched?
ule of the Underwood tariff bill had
a "joker'' in which would have
operated to make all refined sugar
dutiable at 2 cents a pound and nullify
the provision for free sugar after
three years resulted today in an
amendment by majority members of
the senate finance committee.
Elimination in the Underwood bill
of the Dutch standard of color, which
had been in tariff hills for many years,
it was discovered, made applicable to
all refined sugars a paragraph from
the Payne-Aldrieh bill relating to
confectionery, which included the fol?
lowing words; "Sugar after being
refined, when tinctured, colored or
In any way adulterated, 2 cents per
pound."
It was suggested, that the bill as it
stood could be so construed as to
apply to all refined sugar which is
colored with ultra-marine.
The Dutch standard, which was
taken out in the house bill, stipulated
specifically as to the coloring of rc
llned sugar. Members of the finance
committee ordered an investigation
md President Wilson, when his at?
tention was called to it, agreed thut
It should bo looked into thoroughly.
Late today the majority members
3f the committee received expert re-:
ports that the provision might operate
is a joker and they promptly struck
DUt the language as it referred to re?
ined sugar and left it applicable only
to confectioneries.
An important amendment to the
Mil agreed upon by the committee'
would repeal an act passed in 1S90 ex-j
%mpting brandies used by manufac?
turers to fortify grape wines from
he general internal revenue tax. This
amendment, it is estimated, would
ncreaso the government revenue by
17.000,000 a year.
The committee tonight had com-.
Dieted all the schedules and Senator |
Kern, the majority leader, Issued a
-all for a senatorial Democratic caucus
iext Friday.
The caucus can take up the rates
vhile the committee is completing
werk on the income tax and adminis?
trative features.
One of the important matters set
led today was that a countervailing
luty should not he put on live stock
ind meats which are to go on the free
1st unrestricted. Wheel and flour w ill
fo on the free list, but with a coun- ?
ervailing duty.
Rates on leather gloves were in
?reased slightly over the Underwood
-atcs. It also developed that tho com- i
nittee had increased tho proposed
!*atcs on pi? lead and smelter zinc,
concerning which some Democrats
nade a light in the house caucus.
Senator Baulsbury of Delaware to
lay introduced an amendment to the
?ill which would raise the limit on
?ersonal purchases to he brought in
"reo by travelers from $100 to $350.
Senator Works introduced an
imendment providing Tor a tariff ;
hoard of nine members, not more!
than four to be of the same political!
party and that no member should he)
i member or an ex-member of *on
?ress.
The board would be directed to pro-;;
/ids duties to protect American goods-;
'against injurous, oppressive or un-J;
|U8t foreign competition."
After the night session Chairman j
Simmons announced that the admin- ;
Istrative features of the bill would be
revised in n general way to make them I
conform to a revenue basin tariff.
it developed tonight that tho full
committee was certain to approve the |
tctlon of the subcommittee in strik?
ing out the house provision for a r>
i?cr cenl discount on imports brought
in American vessels.
WILL GO TO LISBON.
Meredith Nicholson Nominated for
Minister.
Washington, June is.?President
Wilson today sent to the senate a long
list of nominations. Including thai of
Meredith Nicholson of Indiana as
minister to Portugal.
WOULD MAKE 202 JOBLESS.
Campbell, of Kansas. Wants House
Membership Cul to 233.
Washington, June 17. Representa?
tive Campbell, of Kansas. Introduced
a bill to reduce the number of mem
bcrs In the House after March 3, r.?i7,
to 233, In place ol the present mem?
bership of 435.
|tj Helling her horse propelled ma
chines and using all auto fire trucks
the < Ity of Columbia has reduced hei
luxurnifccc rale und also her expense
bill.
[JQCOR ELECTION FOR BAMBERG
Petitions Bear More than Required
Number of Nome*
Bamberg, June 17.?The petltloni
for an election on the Question of <iis
pensary or no dispensary, which wo??
hied with B. C. Bruce, county super?
visor, last month, have been checked
<?ver carefully and compared with the
registration hooks. It is found that
the petitions contain many more
names of qualified voters than is re?
quired by law to order the election,
and there is no doubt now that Bam?
berg will be one of those counties that
will vote upon the question in August.
What the result of the election will
be Is, of course, conjectural, but, if
straws show which way the wind blow
there are In this county many who,
though prohibitionists at heart, are
getting mighty tired of paying the
insi of such prohibition as this county
has Prohibit ion has proven a failure
"hero, go far as tho consumption of li?
quor is concerned, and it is estimated
that it has cost tho taxpayers of the
county something like $20,000 per
annum to maintain it.
TO DRAW COLOR LINK
Atlanta Mayor Signa Segregation Or?
dinance. .
Atlantn, June is.?Mayor James G.
Woodward today signed the Aspley
segregation ordinance, designed to
d?l.ar negroes from residing in sec?
tions of the city where a majority of
the white residents object to their
presence, and the measure is now a
law.
The ordinance is not retroactive.
Accidents
Happen all over the world
every day. It's best to he
prepared for accidents by
accumulating a Savings
Fund in some bank.
Your money begins earning
the day you deposit it.
A The Peoples' Bank
Battle of Gettysburg
-VIA?
Atlantic Coast Line
(Standard Railroad of the South)
On account of the 50th Anniversary of the battle of Gettys?
burg (Pa.) the Atlantic Coast Line have named very low rates to
Gettysburg, Pa., and return, the fare for the round trip from Sum
ter vrtll be $15.tt0. Tickets on sale June L'Sth, 20th, 30th und July
1st, 1913, with final limit July 10th, 10t3, with stop-over privil?
ege at all stations on the A. C. L., and also Richmond, Washing?
ton and Baltimore on the goinf or returning trip within the final
limit.
For Pullman reservations or other Information call on or write,
ORVILLE V. PLAYER, Ticket Agent,
OrT. C White, G. P. A., Wilmington, N
inninnttintnnnmtnutittiniiniitninini
Selling Goods at
Cost.
i
T does not seem necessaty for this house to en?
gage in this character of business, for strange
as it may appear, there was practically
No Falling Off
in our sales last week as compared with the cor?
responding week last year not withstanding t*~2
terrible slaughter of merchandise that was go'ng
on.
Now that things have resumed their normal
coudition, we invite those of our friends who have
not supplied their wants for
|Some Months
Hence
i
to inspect our stock, where they will find a com?
plete assortment of seasonable merchandise at
"Live and Let Live !
Prices* 1
O'Donnell 6 Co.
utm????uuittt?tti?:ti::mm??t???:mw??nm:mmmmmmmt?ttmr