The Pickens sentinel. [volume] (Pickens, S.C.) 1871-1903, 1893-07-20
THE SALE OF LIQUORS
NOT WITHIN SCOPE OF LuGis-
LATlvE AUTHORITY.

DARLINGTON, S. G.. July 9.-The
following is the text Of Judge IIudson'5
decision as to the legality of the ap.
pointment of dispenser tor DARLINGTON
and the cOnstitutionality Of the hispc..-
sary act.
The State of South Carolina, County of
Darhngton-Inth the Court of Com uon
Pleas Charles s. Mccullough and
j. Witherspoon Evans plaintiffs,
against John Buckuer Floyd, Gro:yc
Just Brown, w. i. Carter and j. i.
Kirven, dciendants-C Com .,llinL for
Injunction.
These plaintiffs, as taxpayers aHG
freehold voters of ,he town of Darlington
on behalf 0: themselves aud lar-r nun
Der of taxpayers OF the S!atr aud lrv,:-
hold voters Of the said tDNn, 10y Whn.C
request they are acting. have Instituted
this acton to urcvcn, the vsi"hlt,hGI,H'
of dspenary for the sale Ct WtONiC'tL.
ing liquors in the town ri D,lln 'iou
under the act of > lth December, l-!2
The grounds Upon wh'r'r The luiun'.
ton is asked arc:
Frst, Because the petition q! John
Buckner Floyd ton thc nlirc Oi dispenser
is not signed by IL majority al The Ire =
hold voters of the town, AMI his bond Is
invalid.
Second, Because the act OF 9th D,ccm.
Der, 1892, IN So far as it provides for thc
establishment OF State and county dis.
pensarlcs for the sale OF iutoXIcaLuG Ii.
luols i'll this State is mconsti.uLic nal.
A rule was served upon the bpl'd OF
control auu the DisHCL ser, J. i. Floyd.
to show cause why the IN junction prlNcd
for should not be granted. The :t~"
was heard before me at chambers at
Darlington, July &, upon the moving pa
pers and the answers to The rule.
The defendants claim that the lninuc-
ton should not be granted, because:
First. The complaint is without equity
inasmuch as it alleges no SPECIAL lrlc.
parable injury 10 the plaintiffs, ami
Second. Because the court is without
jurisdiction in this proceeding to try the
title ot,J. b. Floyd to his office, an ur.
ton in the nature OF quo wIrranto beng
the proper proceeding for that !urposc,
and the writ OF ccrLiOrarI being the only
proceeding to correct any supposed cr.
rOr OF judgment OF the board Of control
IN granting the permit.
l do not take such Il view of llIs ac-
ton. 1t is brought by taxpayers and |
freehold voters, not to try tile To chi .c.
dcal body, but To prevent the cslab-
lishment Ola dlspcnsarv without Il tuI
compliance by The board aud applicant
for dispenser with the essential lrcrc.
quisites of the act; and 20 prevent the
establishment of Il dispcnsnry al'o-rth ,
er ii the act be unconstitutional. i
The remedy 10y The INJUNCTION APP :
propriate to this end. and IN tact is the [,
only eiEcaciOus remedy; and taXpuvcr, "
md freehold voters OF the town can in IN
1Oke the aid OF the court al t9uit, in =,
uch an action without alleging or PROV. II,
~ damage. 1t is the right OF the tax. f.,
aver to avert the ml>appropriatlou ui IT,
le taxes OF the people by an Illegal di- fl
erslon or Investment Oi the same, and ii
" this purpose the doors o: the courts "
re always open to linn. n
In addition to the foregoing technical II
bjectlons. the defendants denied the al. i,
,gatlOus of the complaint. Many cOu- =
letting atlidaVits were submitted touch g
" Che number OF freehold voters in the II
own of Darlington, and touching the i,
act of signature to the petition and the |
lumber thereof. | am convinced, how. G
,ver, that the peuoner, }. B. Floyd, |,
lid not secure on his petition majority
md 80 hold.
The act is very stringent In requiring
the majority TO sigA freely, voluntarily,
and with a iull understanding OF the
Of The petition. The board,
therefore, acted Illegally in granting
Floyd his permit. His bond Is signed
by two ladies onlY--Onc, his mother, Il |
married woman, and The other IL widow |
lady, who did not justify and cannot.
One signature 10 void, the other not SUI.
4 ,,I /. /,
bond. The bond is in tact a straw bond. |
Taking the act to be constitutional |
the facts call for an injunction. But the |
serious inquiry is rs to tho cunStitu.
tionalty OF the act. In determining the |
constitutlonality OF an act o. the Lexis.
laturc 1T IS necessary to consider the
terms Of the Constitution, the powers
therein expressly granted, those which
are necessarily or reasonably implied,
the general duties aud powers 0t the
law-makng body as transmitted to us
from the the usagcs of England Irior to
the Revolution, and also the common
law as derived from the mother country
and adopted here AMI made OF force by
statute.
Every act of our Legislature is pre-.
sumptlvely constitutional, and who |
y
violates either some positive mandate or
prohibition Of that instrument, or some |
one OF the common law or reserved
rights of the people.
The people IN Their social relations
form the State, and when we speak of
the State we mean the people. These
form or adopt a government. 1t is the |
creation CT the people and is framed by |
them for their security in the cnj oymcnt |
of life, liberty, the acquisition OF property
and pursuit CT happiness.
What then are the powers Ct our Leg
islature?
'"The unlimited power which the En-.
gllsh people cOnccdc to their Parliament
mas no place IN our institutions. In
TINS country the people are regarded as
the true and only source of legislative
power. This power is exercised bv
representatives, but they are not az
npefty 10 pass such laws as they please.