Savannah morning news., 1885-12-24
PROHIBITION In ATLANTA
ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNSEL
ON THE INJUNCTION.


Jurisdietion Of Judge McOsy Attacked
by Judge TompkIna-The Law Held ta
be Unconstitutional for All II for Any
One Glass OF Cftizons.
ATLANTA, GA, Dec. 23.-The argument
In the prohibition contest was resumed
to-day. Judge Tompkins took up the
argument for the plaintiffs. He Drefaced
his speech by complimenhng the argu-
ments OF the preceding counsel and thor
ough attention of the court. He objected
to consideration in any way by the court
OF the decision of Judge McCay in the
United States Court, and held that the
grounds of that opinion are not within the
jurisdiction of this court, and that objec.
tlon against contrary decisions In the
United States Court do not appear in the
present case in this court He cited the
famous fence case of 1872 and discussed
It's bearings at length upon the case in
hand.
BEARING OF REGISTRATION.
Judge TompkIns began TO argue that
the fact that the plaintiffs in this case
registered and voted in the election had no
weight in the court, and was about to-
quote authorities TO that effect when HIS
Honor interrupted him by saying that he
did not care to hear any more authority
on that point, as he had already In his
possession all that was necessary, at the
same time reminding the counsel that
they had only 80 minutes remaining in
which to finish their argument. Here
upon some discussion was entered into by
counsel as TO the justice OF an extension
of the time TO the counsel for the plaintiff.
According 10 motion by Mr.. Brown. Il
was agreeably settled that the court
should allow indulgence in that direction
upon promise on the part Of the lawyers
that the privilege should not be abused.
THE LIMIT FOR ARGUMENT.
The rule was made at the outset by the
court that only six hours should be al
lowed to each side, and Nr. King con-
sumed four hours and fifteen minutes
yesterday. After this point had been set
tied, Judge Tompkins proceeded to
manipulate authorities to show that the
action Of the Ordinary in declaring the
result OF the ballot would be purely
ministerial and totally diyested of judicial
character. he cited the case OF an injunc-
tion having been granted on behalf Of a
railroad against Comptroller Wright to
prevent the latter from collecting
some taxes when the amount Of said
taxes might have been recovered and
rebated afterward by legal process, could
It have been proved that their collection
was unjust. He held that In this case
no adequate rebate or redress can ba
made for the wrongs suffered If this law
goes into effect.
NCoNsTITUTIONALITY OF THE LAW.
III the law Is unconstitutional for liquor
dealers or for any one who comes under
that category, IL is unconstitutional for
every one else. Mr.. Mynatt has taken
occasion TO say that be has Just as many
rights and privileges at stake as a liquor
dealer or anybody else. Well he has not
for he does not make living by it,and he
has no rights that would be infringed on
by the operation Of this law, for II be has
any interest in any liquor 10 is at home,
and he keeps his liquor there II he has any.
Julius Brownie does not pour it out.
Judge Tompkins-"No. Judge LOchrane
does that. A man has as much right to
own liquor as houses. The law has not
yet come TO regard liquor as public
nuisance.V
He made the assertion OF Col. Mynatt
that an election was not an election
until the result had been passed upon by
the prOper Official, but how could an elec-
tion OF that sort be in process OF contest
In cOurtf
COL. MYNATT's STAND.
Judge HammOnd-"sIf your Honor
please, as Col. Mynatt is not present,
would ike 10 say that Judge TOmpkina
does not seem TO understand the position
that Col. Mynatt took upon that question.
He simply held that an election is not
legally an election until the returns have
been consolidated and the result publish
ed. Col. Mynatt did not mean TO state
that the voting was still going on"
judge TOmpkins-ltiscO is cOntended by the
other side that the Ordinary is judicial
officer. That presupposes that we are not;
cOutesting the validity Of his action, but
the validity Of the election.
THE DEFENSE.
Col. Westmoreland began his argument
at I O'Clock. He claimed that the con-
testants had no right 10 interfere with the
bill or election as IL now stands, that they
were premature in this action, and that
they cannot touch the law until 10 becomes
such. aud then their mOdus operandi must
be Of another nature, and come In another
form, il they still wish 10 fight IL.
Judge Clark will render bis decision to-
morrow. His quiet way OF listening to
the argument excites some comment, and
his decision is looked forward 10 with no
considerable amount Of interest.
Julius Brown followed for the plaintiffs,
but did not conclude his argument before
the hOur OF adjournment.