The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1894-09-19


Ssate-The Att ,rneys Against the STAT
Pressing the Law of Stare ecisis.
COLUMBIA, S. c., Sept. 13.-lt was ex
sctly II o'clock yesterday mornin'
when the three justices Of the Suprem'
Court solemnly filed into the cour
room and took their seats. They wore
the black sowns which tradition say
all Judges must wear. Caief justice
McIyer took the center of the three
seats arranged for the Judges. Jus
tice Pope took the seat on the right O.
the Chief Justice, the one formerly oc
cupied by Justice MCGOWAN. justice
Gary took the seat On the left formerly
occupied by Justice Pope. Justlc:
Gary did not seem i'll at ease in his po
sltion and stranger walking IN could
not have told but that every member o.
the honorable court had been there fol
years.
The Chief Justice announced the
court ready for business. The cour'
room was fairly well filed with visitors
and among the number were seVefa
lawyers outside the city. Besides these
were number Of saloon men and one
or two prohibitionists.
Everybody knows that the court ha;
been called in extra session for the pur
pose of passing on the constitut!onality
Of the Dispensary law. The constitu
tjonaljtv of the law is involved IN two
cases-whatis is known as the Aiken case
aud what is known as the Charleston
Injunction case. The titles OF the cases
are The State ex relatione j. V George
and G. T. Policy, REALTORS, against the
City Council of the City of Aiken, re-
spondent," and Theodore Melchers and
+. w. Jessen, complainants, petitioner;
against W. L. c. Bates, Treasurer OF
the State Of South Carolina, and D. II
TraxleT defendants"
There are some points OF difference
in each case but the cases are TO Oe
heard at the same time and the court
will dispose of them about the same
time but not likely in the same decision
The attorneys representing the SCaVe
in both cases are Attorney General
Buchanan and R. W. Boyd OF Darling
ton: for the city of Aiken, &. w. Croft;
and for Melchers aud Jessen, J. Z. h.
BRYAN and II. A. NJ. Smith OF Charles.
ton. AL these were present yesterday
morning except Mr.. Smith, who Is ID
Tennessee on business and could not
get here. Mr.. Bryan explained to the
court Mr.. Smiths absence and asked
that the latter be allowed to lille his ar
gument within certain time. Ine
court conferred on this a few SECONDS
and answered that Mr.. Smith could hle
the argument within ten days. The
Chief Justice, however, announced tina
the court might reach decision within
ten days. This was the only indication
given during the day that the court
proposes to hurry the cases.
The proceedings were opened oy At
torney Croft reading the records OF the
Aiken case. Attorney Bryan followed
by reading the petition for the lnJuoc'
tion. In response to this petition AT
torney General Buchanan submitted
the following formal answer:
VT. G. Bates and D. II. Traxlsr,
UPON whom has been served a rule re-
curing them to show cause why the
writ of Injunction prayed for by the
petitioners herein should not be grant
ed, respectfully make return to said
rule, and for causes show:
l. That the respondent, ". I. q
Bates, is the duly elected and qualIhad
Treasurer Of the State OF South Caro-
lima. and the res pondent, D. H. Traxlel
is State Commissioner duly appointed
under the Act of the General Assembly
of the said State, entitled IAN Ac5 to
prohibit the manufacture and sale OF
Intoxicating liquors as beverage
within this State, except as herein pro
yided" and continue Ia said office un.
der the provisions of an Act OF the
said General Assembly entitled AN
Act to declare the law in reference to-
and further regulate the use, sale, con
sumption, transportation and dlsposi.
ton of alcoholic liquids or liquors with
in the State Of South Carolina and to
police the same" approved December,
%. 1898, and now in force IN this State
2. That the acts of respondents, both
those done and performed, complained
of and objected to by petitioners herein
are each and all req quired of respondents
bv the said last mentioned Act, and
have been performed and will be per
formed by them and each of them IN
the faithful discharge Of their sworn
duties as officers of the State as atoIe-
said.
3. That they deny the unconstitution-
ality, inyalidlty and nulllty OF said
Acts, in the part!c alars specified IN the
petition herein or in any other particu
lar; and, on the contrary allege that the
said Acts were passed by ths Genera!
Assembly in the legitimate exercise OF
its constitutional power of legislation
and with the purpose and IN the sincere
desire to minify the evils Of the sale OF
lieuor within the borders of this State
4. They deny that petitioners. or those
united with them, have suffered Injuries
or are about to suffer Injuries from the
operation of the said Act of 1893; and
on the contrary, allege that the opera
ton Of the said Act has conferred and
will continue to confer great benefits
upon them, and upon all the law abld
Ing citiZens of the State, in the way OF
rescuing the people, and especially It's
youth, from the corrupting and demor,
allzing Influences Of the liquor saloon
That petitioners complain as taxpayers
but that on their own showing, the
moneys the disbursement OF which
they SEEK to restrain are not the pro
ceeds of taxation but derived from the
sale OF liquors Dy the State.
5. The respondents further answering
the rule herein, allege that the writ Of
Injunction prayed for should not issue
for that petitioners allege no specia
irreparable injuries to themselves be-
yond those suffered by ths people al
large, nor do they a,lege IN what re-
spect they have been or are likely to bt
Injured by the operation Of the saic
Act.
6. The respondents further answering
the rule herein, allege that the writ Of
injunction prayed for should not issue
for that they are officers OF the STATE
and should not, at the instance OF pri
vate citizens, be restrained III the dis