The Union times. [volume] (Union, S.C.) 1894-1918, October 30, 1896, Image 3
FERTILIZER MIES Ml. '
RAILROAD COMMISSION TO CONSIDER
THEM SHORTLY.
Commissioner Thomas, Gives' His
Views on the SubJeet-VThe Commission
Invites Everybody Interested
to be Present?The Hearing
Sometime in November.
The Railroad Commission is again
to hear the railroad men and others
Interested in the question of fertiliser 1
rates. The hearing will be hold some- (
time in November, the date not having {
been deoided npon.
The Commission held a meeting last |
week in Colombia, at which Commissioner
Thomas introduced the following
resolution and mado remarks
ddoq it. which are published below:
"I move tbatthe Board of Bailroad
Commissioners invite the traffic managers
of the several railroads and the
fertilizer men from each of tho mills
in tho State to assist us in Using a
'just and reasonable' rate, making such
adjustment as commercial changes require
to preserve our territory to our
factories and mines and give the people
the benefit of a healthy and equitable
competition."
Upon this Mr. Thomas said: Mr.
Chairman: There is an old adago
"That a thing is never settled until it
is settled right." I protested against
the fertilizer rates made by the majority
of this Board last year and I have tho
? satisfaction in the rate coming up again
after a fair trial of saying to you gentlomen,
"[ tolJyou so." The rate against
which I protested was in my opinion I
unjust and illegal. In order to show
this I bog to reviow tho whole matter.
The demand for a reduction in tho
rate camo first from a largo mercantile
firm in Anderson who manufacture
and handle fertilizers extensively; they
asked for a reduction of 25 per o?nt.
in tho interest of tho farmers. Then
comes Dr. Robertson, of tho Qlobe
Phosphate Works in Columbia, and
asks for a 50 per cent, reduction, on
account of his great interest in tho
farmer and because cotton seed en
UUOID UttlU iU * ?'*?, ?uu uu Ur|MUUlUUl
4tii tho Board invited the railroad officials,
the fertilizer inanufnctiirera, tho
mercantile) lirm and all others interceded
to a discussion of tho rate. Pago 33
minutes. The invitation to discuss tho
rate after the chairman hud committed
a majority of tho Board in writing to
reduction appeared to me to be trifling
with great and vital |iuterests, for tho
records showed that nine railroads in
this Stato woro unable, with economical
management, to pay their operating
expenses working the $2.10 rate.
On these nine roads the records showed
a deficit of $150,737.69. Tho law
requires us to mako a "just and reasonable"
rato for each road doing business
in this State. Section 1607, General
Statutes. Now a rate reducing
one of tho most important commodities
handled in tho Stato 20 per cont. is
manifestly an outrage against justice,
reason and law, so far as theso nine
roads ore concerned. So it was an
unjust and unlawful discrimination to
give information toono mercantile firm
as to tho action of this Board before
action was taken and withhold like in
joyed a low rate. Dr. Robertson advertised
for petitions to be sent into
the Railroad Commissioners' office asking
for reduction. His advertisement
filled one-quarter page in each issue of
the Cotton Plant for nearly, if not
quite, a year and not u single petition
ever came into this office except from I
one merchant at "Honea Path," and a
resolution from a meeting of the Stato
Alliance asking that the rates between
fertilizers and cotton seed be equalized.
This proves that there was no dissatisfaction
with the old rate, which had
been fixed by agreement botween the
Commission of 1891, the traffic managers
of the railroads and for fertilizer
manufacturers, after days of discussion
in the effort to put all sectious of our
Stato on a parity, tho ono with the
other, and tho fertilizer business had
adapted itself to that rate.
The'old rato was "just and reasonable"
as tho law required in proof of
this. In making rates wo classify nil
commodities that nro related to each
other in regard to weight, bulk nnd
value. Compare corn, grits and meul
in bags with fertilizer in bags. These
commodities are practically of the same
weight, bulk and valuo. The rato on
corn, grits and meal in bags for tLo
average haul in this State, which is 70
miles, is is $2.60. Tho rate on fertilizer
in bagp, 70*milo haul, was $2.10,
reduced to $1.60. Fertilizer was given
the $2.10 rate and put in a class by itself,
because the consignor and con
siguee do tho loading a^d unloading,
for which tho Commission allowed 50
cents a ton.
I tried to find out the motive for
reduction aud offered a resolution,
"That this Board give reasons tor the
extraordinary cut of rates on fertilizers,
since fertilizers were then below
a parity with all analogous commodities."
See page 45, November 6th,
minutes.
The resolution received no second
and the chairman of the Board objected
to its being spread on the minutes,
saying it was a reflection on the Board.
I replied that I meant no reflection,
but simply offered one of the wise
rnles of the Interstate Commission, a
rule which gives publicity and prevents
the Board doing any arbitrary or unjust
not under cover of darkness. 'I found
fault with tho chairman of tho Board
for a letter written by himself, on
page 144, in our letter book, to the fertilizer
firm in Anderson, giving this
firm information that the fertilizer
rate would be reduced before tho reduction
was considered. The letter
OQ.I U 4?1.?_
UlliU* iu ucui^m kUU UUUA IQ
150 miles and the net income is $940
per mile. It is against every principle
of taxation to tax a 70 acre farm
worth $493 the same as a 150 acre farm
worth $940, and so it is against every
principle of "just aud reasonable" rate
making to fix the same rates for conditions
so widely different. It is therefore
unjust to fix the same rate for
South Carolina as for Georgia.
My position in this matter was'eudorsed
by tho Legislature. If the fertilizer
rates should be the samo as in
Georgia, then of course the passenger
rates should bo the same. Tho passenger
rates were thoroughly discussed
in tho Legislature and the first claBS
rates for South Carolina was iixod at
3 1-4 cents por milo against 3 conts in
Georgia for tho same service.
If tho fertilizer rato should bo tho
same as the Georgia rate' then why
should tho cotton rato not be the same?
Tho South Carolina rate on cotton for
70 milo haul is 25 cents, and the Georgia
rate for the same haul is 22 cents,
in a spcoch published in States papers
February 19, 1894, and again October
25, 1895, I urged on this Board of reduction
of tho rate on cotton instead
of fertilizer if they must reduce something;
because tho rato on crude cotton
was higher than the manufactured article.
The woight and bulk of these
J.'ii A.Z 11? AL -
two commodities a re practically tue
samo, and the manufactured goods are
five times more valuable. Crude material
should have a lower rate than
more valuable manufactured artioles.
The reduction of the rate on cotton
would have been altogether in the interest
of the farmer for whom these
fertilizer manufactures were so solicitous.
Tho reduotion of the fertilizer
rate was not in the interest of the
farmer. At the conference it was shown
that the bulk of fertilizers was sold by
tho carload to merchants. The pnrtie6
who pay tho freight and fix pi ice
get the reduction. Feitilizers u.c sole] al-1
most altogether delivered and tho price
is fixed by the fertilizer mannf w.mrer. !
Tho farmer "is not in it. " V. h it beu
efit is a freight reduction of CO cents n '
ton? The truth is tho reduction ol j
the fertilizer rate was agxiust tho in- j
terestBof the farmer intl. it -it destroyed
competition, increasiu;; the demand
and tho prico. The railroads which
servo tho people were hurt. The fertilizer
factories of Charleston which
competed with tho interior u in ?> <?:
shut out of tho most valuable r;.oty
in this State, and were injured.
The 6olo beueficiarics of tlio lerUhzer
reduction were two orthreo interior
mills. Tho many have been made to
sutler for the benefit of tbo few. In
communication to this Board of October
10, Mr. W. A. Clark, President
of the Columbia Phosphate Company,
tells what interest tho farmers have in'
a freight reduction on fertilizer. He
says:
"To illustrate: They have been
ofi'ering acid sacked and tagged F. C.
It riko,l?c?,.n of 07 OK V..... o.l.l to
j/. i vuuiito?uU| n* %P I *>u. iiuw iiuu lu
this $3.30 freight to tho interior makes
$10.50 payablo May 1, 1897. Now deducting
from this $1.75, which would
be an average freight to points north
of Columbia on any of tho roads,
would leave $8.80 net to us at Columbia
payable May 1, 1897.' J
Now deduct from this no freight at
all and this would leave $10.55 net at
Columbia payable May 1, 1897. So it
is evident that no matter whether the
freight is $3.30, $1.75 or nothing at
all, the farmer has always to pay the
same, $10.55. This is proof from tho
best authority that the redaction of
freight on fertilizer is altogether in
the interest of the fertilizer manufacturer.
Tho records show that many roads
in this State wero unable to stand the
reduction and the records show more
complaints in our oftice than ever before
against the inconvenient and nnsutibfuotory
service many of the
roada are now giving the people. Two
roads have tried to cease operation
uuring mo year, but tiie Commission
have forced them to continue. One
road tried to tear up its track and the
people are now appealing to tho Commission
and the courts to prevent it.
Tho ruilroada resisted the reduced
fertilizer rate aud tho caso was taken
to tho United States Court, whore it
ahould have been adjudicated and settled,
but instead a majority of the
Hoaid entered into a trade with tho
railroad corporation as follows: "That
the railroads will immediately have
withdrawn the pending bill in tho
United States Circuit Court in Equity,
and will agree to put in operation the
reduced tariff on fertilizers." etc. At
the requost of the railroad companies
the commissioners will take ap at an
early day, with the traffic managers oi
the several railroad lines, the consideration
of the entire freight traffic rates
with a view to ascertaining whether
thero are not somo other articles upon
whicn they can consistently with their
offioial duties grant raises of rate, or
so revise (hi entiro tariff as to do jus
tico mid oijiiity to all."
Commissioner Thomas protested as
follows:
1st. That it is unjust and illegal to
select fertilizers out of a lot of anala
formation from all other firms similarly
situated. I
I offered a resolution that the rule of
the Interstate Commission be the rule 1
of this Board: "That on request of
either the eomplainant or defendant
this Board shall make publio the oases
and the reasons for the decision of the
Board." Seepage|47, Not. 9?Minutes.
Tour reasons for reduetion were published
in the State papers Deo. 20th,
1895. The main reason was that "A
road passing through North Carolina,
South Carolina and Georgia should
serve all their patrons in these States
on a parity in the rates used." Page
64?Minutes. This was a specious ar
foment, calculated to mislead. The
conditions which obtain in these States
tre entirely different. For instance,
in South Carolina the average haul is
70 miles and the net income is $493 per
*** 1 ?* 4 1\a awawajva V* n n 1 in
of the law, then God help the people.
Not only the farmor but every other
industry in this state will soon be
taught the rule put by Wordsworth
into the mouth of Rob Roy:
"The simple rule, the good old plan,
That he shall take who has the power,
Ane he shall keep who can."
Under what law have you gentlemen
authority to cut rates of any railroad
below the cost of service and confiscate
the property? Under what law do you
find authority for trading away the interests
of the great fertilizer manufacturing
centre of South Carolina, and
turning it over to a few little interior
mills who can't supply the demands of
even tho Piedmont section. You
gentlemou havo yourselves done that
which tho law instructs you to prevent,
I hut is the reason why I have pub)iahi
ed protest after protest against'a rafe
| which I know to be unjust, anreasonable,
discriminative and illegal.
l'ilty per cent, of the fertilizers in
! this State are sold in the Piedmont
section. In all that section there was
n blanket rate of $3.GO per ton from
till ii'lcstoo, which by agreement between
tho commission, the railroads
titii fertilizer manufacturers, after
I duys of discussion was supposed to
place Charleston and Columbia on a
i parity in that territory. It was work
ed for years without complaint until
tho Anderson and Coluinbiu Mills got
so awful distressed about the poor
down-trodden farmer. The rate from
Oharleston into the Piedmont territory
was cut abont 8 per cent, and the
Columbia and Anderson rate about 25
per cent., thus giviug the Columbia
and Anderson mills 17 per cont. margin
of profit. The Columbia and Anderson
mills sell all their goods on the
Charleston price and the 17 per cent,
profit goes into their pockets instead
of into the pockets of the dear farmer.
On September 17tb this Board issued
the following instructions to the
railroads as regards the out-rate war:
"That the same differential which obtained
between the competitve and local
points before the war began mast
be preserved in any cut that is made."
If the instructions of the Board were
right in the cut rate war then why did
tho Board take exactly opposite
grounds in the fertilizer rate war, and
refuse to preserve the differential
which obtained between Charleston
and Columbia without assigning any
valid reason and without considering
'i >:? * ~
lUOCUIUJjnruilYC tum. VI piuuuv?ivu Ml
tho two points, arbitrarily created a
differential of 17 per coot, in favor of
thonnterior mills. At ono of our conferences
tho secretary of our Board
stated that he sold $50,000 or $60,000
worth of fertilizers. I asked him from
what point. Ho replied, from Columbia.
I referred you to Section 1626
G. S., which forbids railroad commissioners
from owning any stock or
bonds of any railroad and then make
rates for that road. I stated that I saw
our secretary mako this rato and that
it was certainly against the spirit ol
the law for tho secretary to make ratea
to enable him to sell fertilizer at a
profit of 17 per cent, above hiscompetitors.
Tho Charleston manufacturer!
have come before us with a just complaint
Tho discriminative rate made
by this Board have shut these complainants
out of the most desirable
territory in this State, uud have closed
up some of their mills.
Tho most offensive and dangerous
of all discriminations in transportation
is the preferential rate, that is, a rate
that will destroy the business of one
community and build up another.
That nnn cnmmnnitv ftlintild be criven
an arbitrary advantage over another
in the supply of a common necessity
like fertilizer is repugnant to every notion
of equality, is ofTonsivo to the
rudest conceptions of justice, and
above all it is diamotrically opposed
by tho laws of our Stato.
The 17 per cent, advantage wbicL
mi. n
gens commodities and redoes II below
ita kind.
2d. That be bad a resolution on JUs
in the office to readout the whole tarif
for twelve months past* hot the me
lntion had been ignored.
I 3d. That this pebpositiou, however,
it might be oorered np in words was a
trade and that he was not authorised
or willing to make any enoh trade in
favor of oneoommnnity against others,
bat that jastioe oaght to be done by
the Board to the railroads and the
people on a consideration of the whola
schedule, and he refnsed.to be a party
to any trade whatever.
W. A. Hironaor,
Chairman.
The trade between the commission
and the railroads stripped of alls its
verbiage is simply this: Ton work the
fertilizer rate whether it is just or not,
and we will raise rates to reoonp yon.
When yon agreed to recoup the railroads
you acknowledge that yon had
made for them an nnjast and unreasonable
rate, else why agree to pay
the railroads to work it? The fertilizer
reduction precludes even the con
Bideration of a redaction of the rate
on cotton, because the majority of this
Board under the terms of the trade
with the railroads are committed in a
written agreement to a raise of rate,
thus you oxolude the farmer from a
reduced rate on cotton to which he is
[ustly and legally entitled. On page
12 in Georgia's Railroad Commissionars
report, 1895; the Commission says:
"That the people do not read, think
ind observe how this great octipup,
the Southern Railway, is getting its
bold on our industries?farming, man*
ufacturing, jobbing fruit-raising, m?
Ding, etc., and sucking their lifeblood."
This great corporation whose attorney
in a suit with the State said that
the capitalization of the Southern
Railway was larger than - the whole
taxable property of South Carolina is
stretching ;".ts tentacles into this State
and has pretty well gobbled up everything
above Columbia.
If rates are to be made in this State
by the Railroad Commission trading
111. il:.
. this rata hu given Colombia and An*
( daraon will ultimately eloae every one
i of the Charleston mills and transfer
! the fertiliser boaineaa into the interior
or into some other State.
The Charleston manofhoturers have
Ent millions of dollars in developing
fertiliser industry and have paid
] great rams of rovalty into the State
i treasury. In the internet of the State,
in the interest of fair play and in obodienoe
to law their plants should be
protected from these unjust and discriminative
rates. Eqnal rights
should be accorded them and no special
privileges be granted their competitors.
Of what avail are industry, enterprise,
integrity or any of the qualities
which lead to success if one competitor
oivan IT rtnr ailvaninoa
another? In such case the raoe is not
to the ewift nor the battle to the
strong, but to the one whose freight
rates are the lowest. I hope my resolution
will meet the approval of tho
Board and that you will join mo in
the endeavor to fix a "just and reasonable"
rate that will be just aliko to
the railroads, the fertilizer mannfaotnrers
and to the farmers.
Chairman Evans offered the fo'lowing,
which being adopted, made the
resolution read;
"I move that the Board of Railroad
Commissioners invite the traffic managers
of the several railroads, aod the
fertilizer men from each of the mills
in the State and representatives of all
organized bodies of farmers as well as
individual consumers who are interested
in this important question to assist
us in fixing a just umi reasonable
rate, if the present rate is found to be
unjust and unreasonable, making such
adjustment as commercial ohanges require,
if each adjustment and changes
be found necessary to preservo our territory
to our factories and our mines,
and to give the people the benofit of i
healthy and equitable competition."
Mr. Wilborn offered the following
amendment, which was, however, rejected
:
"Resolved, That the SAid investigation
on fertilizers be held with a view
of reducing the joint rates north of Columbia,
8. C."
A CHILD'S FORTUNE.
South Carolinians Figure In an Important
Case In New York.
The following from the New York
Herald of the 14th, will be of interest
to many in this State:
Horace Secor, Jr., has been appointed
referee by Judge Beekman of the
supreme conrt for the purpose of deciding
whether $7,500 is u reasonable
sum for tho support, maintenance aud
i _ i..i?
uuuv>miuu ui u cuuia trig Lit uuit l% uuu
years old. He will incidentally bo
oalled upon to deoide whether the
child's guardian, who is his aunt, shall
receive $2,000 additional a year for
taking care of him.
- The child in question is FrancisMnrion
Whaley, who viu born on April
29, 1889. He is the sou of Lionisi^;
McCready Whaley and of William
Whaley. His mother was the daughter
of Nathaniel McCready, millionaire,
and formerly president of the Ol 1 Dominion
Steamship company, and held
high social position in this city. Her
death occurred on Oct. 10, 1889. his
father is a son of William Whaley. au
eminent Charleston lawyer.
The child's grandfather died in
October, 1887, leuviutr a largo fortune,
nud by bis will left the rcsiduo of his
estate, subject to charge of $25,000
annually, for the benefit of Lis wife,
Caroline A. McCready to hi3 three
children. By the death of Mrs.
Whaley her interest in her father's
estato will go to her son as soon as ho
arrives at the ago of 21 veurs. The
principal of the fund amounts to$600,000.
Until he becomes of age the boy
will be entitled to the income of this
fund, subject to a charge of one-third
of $25,000 annually. Tho income of
the child is $14,000 a year and is under
the care of the Farmers' Loau and
Trust company, the guardian of his
estate.
Ever since October, 1889, the child
has resided with his nant, Marie
Whaley Chisolm, at her plantation on
Edieto Island, S. O. She is tne guardian
of his person. The oourt granted
an allowanoe for the boy's support in
July, 1890, of $3,000 annually, which
was increased to $4,000 a year in May,
1892. This sum is now considered to
be entirely inadequate to support and
maintain him in a manger benefiting
his fortune and the social positiou of
his family.
His aunt thinks that the court should
award her $7,000 yearly for tho child's
support and education, and that in addition
to this, she should also receive
$2,000 as an allowance for herself as
compensation for her services. She
states that she has been compelled to
neglect her property and family and
all her home comforts in b6half of tho
child, and to devote her entire attention
to him.
It will be necessary to place the litI
tie boy in a private school in Charles(
ton for instruction, and in order to do
this a home in Charleston will have to
be provided for him and his aunt, who
will have to leave her home on Edisto
' Island to look after her ward. This
will necessitate au increase in the boy's
allowance.
Mrs. Cbisolru also asks the court to
grant hor an ullowaueo of $G,62ti, at
the rate of 81,500 yearly, since May,
189*2, for taking care of her nephew.
This sum she has expended out of her
1 own estate.
i l>awn tennis swing to have fallen
from Its high estate In England as well
i as In this country. The trouble with
tennis Is that It is too cheap to be fashionable.
You don't have to hire a caJdlo
by the hour to tote around a lond
1 of.batting spoons, brassies, eraigenput'
t?>cks, lofters and other articles of hardware.
Tennis Is a good sport and It Is
a pity to see It follow croquet luio
1 innocuous desuetude. .
'
ICWSTITIIML QUESTI
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE POPE HAS
NO JURISDICTION
To Issue An Interlocutory Writ or
Order off Injunction at Chambers.
The following is a certified copy of
an order just made by Associate Justice
Pope aft Abbeville. As it is the
first authoritative constitution of those
provisions of the Constitution of 1895
whioh empower Associate Justices of
the Supreme Court to interlocutory
writes or orders of "injunction at
chambers, it may be of interest to the
^ublio, and especially to members of
tne oar. xno piainuns were represented
by Frank B. Qary and Samuel
0. Caeon and the defendants by Graydon
& Graydon:
The State of South Carolina?County
of Abbeville?In the Court of Common
Pleas?A. J. Salinas & Sons,
plaintiffs, against C. Aultman & Co.
and J. O. Klugh as Master, defendants.?Complaint
for relief.
A motion was made before me as an
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
of this Stato by tho above named plaintiffs
in the above named action in the
Court of Common Pleas for the County
of Abbeville, in this State, for an order
of injunction to restrain the defendants
from selling the house and
lot described in the complaint until
tho above named cause could be heard
on its merits. The application in the
the first instance?to-wit, on tho 24tb
day of September, 1896?was ex parte.
On that day I granted an order for a
rule to she iause before me by tho
defendants, on the 14th of October,
1896, why such preliminary Injunction
should not issue. When the role to
show cause was issued it waa..believed
that the presiding Judge of the Eighth
Circuit was absent from this circuit, and
also that Judge Witherspoon, who was
appointed tinder the law to hold the
courts for the Eighth Circuit, was also
absent from this Circuit. The latter
proved to oe a mistake, although
plaintiffs justly believed that he was so
absent.
The defendants, at the hearing before
me, made two grounds for the refusal
of the order of the preliminary
injunction?one jurisdictional and the
other on the merits. The latter I cannot
consider, because. I ought not to
consider. If I am without jurisdiction,
I have no right, to consider any other
question in the case.
My jurisdiction to hear this motion
is now based .hpoh the provisibns of
the new Constitution?? mean the
Constitution adopted in the year 1895.
This is the first instance in whioh tjiia
serious and delicate question is squarely
presented for decision, and it has
been given serious consideration. After
a careful review of the provisions
of the new Constitution, I am satisfiod
I have no jurisdiction in the premises.
Briefly, these are tho (controlling
thoughts that lead' me to this conclusion:
Section 1 of Article IV of the Constitution
of 1895provides: '"The judicial
power of this State shall bo vested
in tho Supremo Court, in two Circoit
Courts, to-wit: A Court of Common
Pleas, having civil jurisdiction, and a
Court of General Sessions, with criminal
jurisdiction only. The General
Assembly may also establish Counity
Courts, municipal courts.
Thus it ia plainly manifest that the
constitution nos amaea tne judicial
power of the State among certain tribunals
by name. Sections 2, 3 and 4
declare that the Supreme Court shall
be, fixing the number of the Justices
thereof, and carefully stating,in Section
4, the jurisdiction of the Suprepie
Court, in these words: "The Supreme
Court shall hare power to issue writs
or orders of injunotion, madamns, quo
warranto, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus and other original and
remedial writs. And said court shall
have appellate jurisdiction only in
cases of chancery, and in such appeals
they shall review the findings of fact as
well as the law, except in chancery
cases where the facts are nettled by a
jury and the verdiot not set aside, and
shall constitute a court for the correction
of errors at law under such regulations
as the General Assembly may
by law proscribe."
By this Section 4 of the Supreme
Court is granted jurisdiction, first, in
certain instances of original jurisdiction;
second, in appeals in chancery,
aud, third, iu correcting errors at law.
We mnet remember Always tbat the
Supreme Court consists, by the terms
of tho Constitution, of four members,
and its decision must bo made by a majority
of its members in cases within
its original or appollate jurisdiction,
unless in those instances where the
Conrtis equally divided, or some Constitutional
question is presented as set
out in the 12th Section of Article V.
Worn vta 1x>ft 4/% A/i TirnviainnA nf
Constitution, it would bo clenr that no
individual JuRtico of tbe Supreme
Court could make any order in matter*
Leforo tbe Court* cither jo its original
or appellato juriediction, and also anob
power would be denied Lira inaoy lower
Court. But " Section 25 appear*
with this lanflruace: "Each of the Juaticos
of the Supreme Coart and Judge*
of the Circuit Court shall have the
same power at chambers to isene writs
of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo Warranto,
certiorari, prohibition and interlocutory
writs or orders dt injunction
as when in open court. Tho
Judges of the Circuit shall have such
powers at chambers as tho General Assembly."
Now. what powers has a Jnstioa of
j tho Supremo Court, in open court, in
a case pending for trial in the Circuit
Court? What power has a Circuit
lodge in open oourt in a case pending
in the Snpre me Court? None. IL
then, Justice of the Supreme Ooart
bee no power in open ooart in the Circuit
Courts of the State, and a Circuit
Judge in the Sapreme Ooart, what does
this language occurring in Section 26
mean? Nothing more than to olotbe
each one of the jnsttoeoof the Supreme
Court, in eases pending in the original
jurisdiction of such Supreme Court,
with the power to pass orders at chambers
in snoh cases, end likewise to empower
the Cirouit Judges to pass orders
at chambers within their jurisdiction
as Circuit Judges.
As before stated, these are raj
views, onenj slated. It follows,
therefore, that aa an Associate Jastioo
of tha Supreme Oonrt I hare no jurisdiction
in these premises, and the motion
must be denied, not upon its merits,
but purely because I hare no juristion
over it.
At Chambers, 16 October, 1896.
T. J.
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
of South Carolina.
ORDER OF MAN DAM 1*8
Issued by Judge Gary Against Magistrate
Smltli.
Last week at Newberry Judge Gary
gave another hearing to counsel in tegard
to the petition of Thomas J. LaMotto
to compel, by mandamus, Magistrate
Smith to iBsuo a warrant for
Seegers and Narey, holders of special
beer selling privileges in Columbia.
Petitioner LaMotte represented himself.
Mr. Muller represented Magistrate
Smith and Assistant Attorney
General Townsend appeared for the
board of control. IMr. LaMotte raided
the point that Mr. Towneend should uot
be heard, the State board of cuutrol
not being a party to the proceedings.
The oourt did not accede to this request.
' Mr. Townsend read an affidavit
from the attorney general stating that
the name of the State had been used
iu hiu )i?uhvu wuuoui auinorit-y. Mr.
Mailer read tbe return of Magistrate
Smith, giving as reasons why mandamus
should not iaaue, in addition to
reasons already passed upou at Union,
that the oourt is without jurisdiction;
that the court should not interfere
with Magistrate Smith in this matter, ?
which should be left to the hitter's
diserotion, and that the petition, uot
being in the name of the State, must
necessarily fall. Tho return ulso contended
that Petitioner LuMottc was
without peouliar individual rights or
interests, and had snfferod no damage
by reason of the magistrate's uctiou.
Mr. LaMotte submitted an affidavit
relating the details of the action of
Magistrate Smith, upon which the petition
was based.
Mr. Muller'moved that Mr LhMotte
be required to demur or plead to the
issues of facts raised in the return,
and that suoh issues of fartts be 'referred
to o jury .of Richmoud oouuty. for
determination.
The court refused to rule upon these
questions until the whole cusu short Id.
havo been-submitted, but, .011 motion,
ordered that the name of the State be
Htricken from tbe "proceedings as surplusage.
,
After argument Judge Gary announced.
that he would grunt an order
of mandamus requiring Magistrate
Smith to issue an arrest warrant in
the case, but not a search warrant, thq
court constructing the duties of the
magistrate in regard t.i the isane of an
arrest warrant to be ministerial and
not judicial..
(Nothing new has developed in the
beer privilege matter. No warrant
baa been asked for and tho probabilities
are that the cuss will.not be set-'
tied until the Supreme Court baa final*
ly passed on the matter. There ia no
doubt .about an appeal being, taken*
but tho attorneys refuse to say .anything
about their probable action.
FOR THE PKOPLE'S CAC8K.
Watson, Candidate for Governor,
Speak* to Freemen of the Stute.
Cyrus B. Watson, Democratic candidate
for Governorin North Carolina,
who has been confined to his bed with
fever at hin home at Winston, has issued
an address to the voters of his
Btate, whieh is written in burning
words to freemen. Below ia a few
scraps taken from the letter, which is
worth Considering:
My own voipe cannot be raised in
your hearing, but let tbo voice of my
letter plead with you." He also says
that "I desired to meet my opponent,
Mr Russell, the Republican candidate
for Governor, in joint debate upon
all the questions in tbis campnlgn,'but
he rejected m> challenge aud .declined
to stand up in the field with me before
the people."
I wanted above all, my fellow citizens,
to enter every county in North
Carolina and see you personally that I
might know yon and that you might
know me, that in the administration of
tho responsible duties of Goveruor of
Nortlr Carolina, I could represent the
interest of .every section, knowing, no
man above another, bat dqjug justice
to all. And now from my beil ot sickness
I send you n/y greeting, and the
full aesqrance that if I should he by
your suffrages elevated to the high
position for which the l)6niocratio
farty baa,presented mean its candidate,
would ask no greater honor, tbau to
ko admiiiiHter-the duties of' my high
offioethstm-yeouduetwoaJd meet with
the approval of yoj^fh <
There axe Signs of ? cessation In tlio
bicycle craze among English people of
rushlon. They w6nt1n for H with greac
enthusiasm because'It \y:m the-proper
thing to do, rather than for any real
enjoyment of riding, and now the
reaction hae set In. The question ofj
abandoning the craze was raised a,'
month or so ago by the fact that two!
servants?the butler and maid of a,
well-known family?were seen riding!
ou bicycles In Kotten ltow.