The Lexington dispatch. [volume] (Lexington, South Carolina) 1870-1917, 1894-08-29
THE TEST CASE AT LAST.
THIS 1893 DlSPENSARY LAW TO BE
DECIDED ON.


DECIDED ON.
pose and the Supreme Court to be Csllet
In Extra SessIon-The Points to be AR
eued Agreed Ga.
COLUMBIA, s. G.. Aug. 23-Thp AK
en- case IS 10 De the one which Will de
eide the 1898 diSpanSary law and which
Will forever settle the cor rS.itutlonalltl
or uncOnstituti0naIity Of the famou:
law unless it can be gotten into th'
! United | States Supreme Court.
The State and the city authorities o.
| Aiken have made an agreement th=
this case shall be the test case before
the State Supreme Court The agree
ment WAS made in Aiken on TUESDAY
whilA Assistant Attorney General Bar
Der was IN that city.
OF course everybody will want tC
know when the case can get before the
court. The truth Is that Governor ill
man has requested, and Attorney Gen
eral Buchanan has joined IN the re-
quest, that Chief Justice Mclver cal
an extra session Of the court as soon aE
possible. the request was sent to the
I Chief Justice few days ago and his
answer is expected today or tomorrow
If the request is ac:eded tc the extra
session Will be held the last Of this
month or the first of September. The
court will consist of Chief Justice Nc
liver and Associate Justices Pope and
| Eugene Gary.
The case is to go to the court on ex'
ceptions to the decision Of Judge AL
drich ard the points to be argued have
also been agreed upon. They are az fol,
lows:
| EXCEPTIONS OF TIE lsELATORS.
Toe relators except to and appeal to
| the Supreme Court Of South Carolina
from the decree rendered and made
herein by his Honor Judge James Al
drich on the 18Th day of August, 1894
upon the ground that his Honor erred
as follows:
|. In holding that the respondents, a
! municipal corporation, could set up and
plead that the Dlspensary Act OF 1893
is in violation of sections |. > and Al OF
Article of the Constitution OF the
State of South Carolina.
2. In holding that 1t is competent for
the respondent to set up and plead that
the Dispensary Act of 1893 IS in viola
ton of the 4 IN. 9Th and ll,h amend
ments to and of section 8 of Article
Of the Constitution of the United States
and also in conflict with the Interstate
Commerce law.
,. In holding that the Dispensary Act
Of 1893 is sn amendment of the Dis
pensary Act Of 1882 and uncOnstitu-
t1ona!.
4. In holding that the said Act con
stltutea a monopoly in the sale OF in,
toxicating liquors and is therefore
void; whereas ne should have held that
the exclusive sale by agents of the State
is proper police regulation regularly
passed by the Legislature in its wisdom
in furtherance OF its judgment that
such a measure was a necessary re-
Quirement for the regulation of the
liquor traffic, to protect the health,mor
ais and welfare Of the people: and that
the exclusive coatrol Ey the State of
such recognized subject Of police su-
pervision is constitutional and valid.
). In holding that the said Act Is
unconstitutional in providing for the
exclusive sale by agents of the State
and forbiddtng all other persons; where
AS he should have held that said Act
providing for such sale exclusively by
agents CT the State is a constitutional
exercise of the police power Of the
State over a recognized subject matter
Of police supervision.
&. In not holding that the Dispensary
Act OF 1893 is valid law and In no
wise violates the Constitution of the
United States or that Of the State OF
South Carolina.
OSMUND w. BUCHANAN.
Attorney General, for Relator5 appel
lant.
EXCEPTIONS OF RESPONDENTS
The following are the exceptions or
the respondents:
l. Because it is respectfully submit
| ted tnat the REALTORS herein had ample
remedy at law for the correction Of any
grievance of which they complain, and
therefore they were not entitled to the
writ of prohibition and his Honor the
Circuit Judge erred in not 80 deciding.
,. Because the said Act OF the Gene
raj Assembly OF this State violates Sec
ton s Of Article | of the Constitution
Of the United States and also violates
the Act of the Congress of the United
States regulating commerce between
the States and is therefore null and
void.
3. Because the said Act Of the Gen
eral Assembly Of this State violates the
45h, 5th and I4;h amendments of the
Constitution OF the United States and
is therefore null and void.
I. Because it is respectfully submit
ted that the ordinance Of the city OF
Aiken referred to in the return herein
is authorized by section l13V Of the
General Statutes Of this State; that the
same is lawful and Of binding force
within the corporate limits of the city
of Aiken and his Honor, the Circuit
Judge, erred IN not 50 deciding.
,. That his Honor erred in granting
the writ of prohibition and deciding
that the respondents should pay the
costs Of the proceedings herein.
&. w. CROFT,
NJ. b. Woodward.
Attorneys for Respondents.
THE AGREEMENT.
{ ~, ~ Ill