The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1893-07-12
SYNOPSIS OF THE DECISION.

SYNOPSIS OF THE DECISION.
The grounds upon which the injunc-
ton was asked are:
First, Because the petition of John
Buckner Floyd for the office OF dispen-
ser is not signed by majority of the
freehold voters of the town, and his
bond is invalid.
Second, Because the act of oath De-
cember, 1892, in so far as it provides
for the establishment of S ate and
county Dispensaries for the sale of In
toxicating liquors in the State, is un-
constitutional.
The defendants claim that the in
junction should not be granted, because:
First, The complaint is without
equity, inasmuch as it alleges no
special or irreparable injury to the
plaintiffs, and
= Second, Because the court is With
out jurisdiction in this proceeding to
try the title of J. 3. Floyd to his office,
an action in the nature of quo aooTrd7to
being the, proper proceeding for that
purpose, aud the writ Of certiorari be-
ing the only proceeding to correct any
supposed error Of Judgment OF the
board cf control in granting the permit.
Judge Hudson says:
ssI do not take such view of this
action. It is brought by taxpayers
and freehold voters, not to try title to
Office nor to correct error of judgment
in judicial body, but to prevent the
establishment of s. .Dispensary without
full compliance by the board and ap-
plicant for Dispenser with the essential
prerequisites of the act, and to prevent
the establishment of Dispensary alto
pether if the act be unconstitutional.
tThe remedysby the Injunction Is
appropriateste tkSs end, ana in fact is
the only efneaeieas remedy; and tax
PAYERS and freehold voters Of the town
can invoke the aid of the court OF
equity in such an action without alleg-
ing or proving special damage.
lit is the right of the taxpayer to
avert the misrepresentation of the taxes
of the people by an illegal division OF
investment of the same and for this
purpose the doors of the courts are
always open to him."
AS to the number of freehold voters
who had signed the petition Of J.. 3.
Floyd, after hearing the many conflict
ing afidavits presented, Judge Hudson
says:
II am convinced, however, that the
petitioner, J. B. Floyd, did not secure
on his petition majority, and so hold:
"The act is very stringent in requlr-
ing the majority to sign freely, volun-
tariIy and with full understanding OF
the meaning of the petition.
IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Of the second clause he says, after
reviewing many authorities and citing
numerous precedents:
'Can the act of Oath December, 1892,
now under consideration, be sustained
as coming within the police power OF
the State?
"In so far as it prohibits the manu-
facture and sale of Intoxicating liquors
in this State, it can. This question has
long been settled by the courts of the
States of the Union, and recently in
express terms by our Supreme Court.
''But the vital question is whether
it is constitutional for the Legislature
to confer upon the government of this
State, OF any branch thereof, the ex-
elusive right to trade in intoxicating
liquors and maintain the same from
the treasury of the State? Can that
body divert the taxes Of the people
frem the legitimate purposes OF govern
ment, and invest the money ID the
trade and traffic in intoxicating liquors
20 the exclusion of the right of the peo-
pie to deal therein?
s'There is no warrant in the constitu-
ton for the creation of so gigant a
monopoly in any private Individual or
association of individuals. The attempt
to erect such monopoly would very
Justly alarm and outrage the people,
and would not stand the test of law.
TO confer upon an individual or d cor.
poration, under wholesome rules and
regulations, the exclusive right to sell
intoxicating liquors in the State OF
South Carolina would be unconstitu-
tional; not because such grant is pro-
hibited expressly by the constitution,
but because it is against the genius
and spirit of all free governments, and
it is in violation of the common law
rights of the people, as handed doWn
to US through the Magma Charta of
King John, and which form the web
and woof and warp ofour fundamental
law and individual rights.
'.Neither IN express terms nor by
any implication have the people dele |
gated to this government, either in its |
executive or judicial depart
ment, to engage in trade, traffic or
commerce in competition with the peo-
pie, much less to their exclusion. The !
government cannot become sole pro- |
prietor nor. eopartner in any Of the |
usual known branches of industry,
trade or commerce. These are the pur-
suits and property of the people, which |
they have never surrendered to the |
On the contrary, the |
very object of creating the government
was to protect them in these individual
rights, to wit, life, liberty, property
and the pursuit of happiness.
r.. L