The Orangeburg news. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1867-1875, 1873-09-27

NtlttNSAAtsf Uhcy edllJMeu
them go at large for long time unpun
ished. That this is in violation Of the
law. Tho object of the law vas Co pun.
ash offenders ana not put money in the
justices pockets. That the finances Of
the County should be looked into. That
there was no excuse for the County
being in debt. Ifthere were debts ont
standing. there was somewhere viola
ton of the the law that ought to be iu-
quired into.-That itlwns the duty Of
the Jury Commissioner to make up his
list every January, aud to select for that
purpose the very best men who could
be found, morally aud intellectually,
and if such were not selected as iurymen
the Commissioner had faile to do his
duty and should be prosecuted. That
they should visit the Jail, Poor House
and other public Offices, aud SEQ that
these were properly conducted. That
they are not to act on the suggestions o.
outsiders who were unwilling TO 90
before Justice and lodge complaints OF
violation of the law. They were to pre-
sent anything within their knowledge.
He required them to mako aspacial re
port of violations of the License law.
That dram shops were curse to the
community. The suffering women and
children of the land required that it
should be looked into. The law re luir-
ed retailers to keep beds and bedding
stable room; provisions and forage, an d
if any did not, it was the duty of the
jury to report them. He called attcn-
tion to the ordinance of the town re-
quirng seed cotton to be weighed at the
market leforc told, and that the seller
should report whore the cotton was rails
ed, and prohibiting its sale between sun
set and sunrise, and pronounced the
ordinance unconstitutional, or if not un-
constitutional, at least void, because in
ccntravention of thespirit Of Republican
ism, AMI lie took occasion to reGor to the
law as it existed when men who wore
employed as laborers had to get writ
ten permit to sell produce. The Court
then proceeded to tho business of the
term
There are one or two p iuts in the
Judges charge upon which we thiuk it
we'll to make comment. In relation
to the violation of the license law. while
we concur in the great evil of the H.
quor traffic, we think that thereare sew
eral reasons why the retailers here who
had taken out the proper license should
not be Indicted. The Tuppsr law re.
quiring certain preparations f6T tavern
keeping upon the part Of those veuling
by retail, was allowed by common con.
sent to fall into disease lucing the wpr,
and even the officers ofthc law aud tn c
municipal authorities supps sed it hld bean
swept away, because its violation Ia 50
long winked at. No one knew anythiu
to the contrary until it's re enactment in
the revised statutes little more than a
year ago, and even then the people were
generally ignorant Of this IN ,tter until
Judge Cooke brought it to the notice of
the Grand jury on his Circuit.
Agnin--all taxes are required by the
constitution to be equal and assessed up
on an al Salorem principle. Hence the
late law requiring business men gener.
ally to take ont licenses and pay for thom
was aImitted to be unconstitutional, and
the law was repealed by the Legislature
Upon what principl- can it be required
of liquor dep lcrs to pay th. liconse tax?
If they cannot require the tax, can the
penalty be oniorcOd ? If any such ca
ses come up, We may look for Spren,il la
ton Of these ideas.
So far as the Seed Cotton Ordinance
is concerned, we regret that the Judge
had not reserved his opinion, until a
case was presented. The ordinance is
great protection to the honest producer,
and puts a stop to the system of rob-
berry from the field on the one hand and
robbing by false weights on the other,
and could not work injury to any good
man.
@ believe the ordinance to be