The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1894-08-29
THE TEST CASE AT LAST.
THE 1893 DISPENSARY LAW TO BE
DECIDED ON.

THE 1893 DlSPENSARY LAW TO BE
DECIDED ON.
The Aiken Case Agreed Oa for the Pur
pose and the Supreme Court to be Csllet
in Extra session-The Points to be ar
eued Agreed On.
COLUMBIA, s. c., Aug. 23.-Tha AK
en- case is TO be the one which will de
eide the 1888 dispensary law and which
will forever settle the cor stitutlonslit!
or unconstitutionality of the famou!
law unless it can be gotten into tht
Un1ted States Supreme Court.
The State and the city authorities o
Aiken hays made an agreement tina
this case shall be the test case before
the State Supreme Court. The agree
ment was mad5 in Aiken on TueSda!
while Assistant Attorney General Bar
ber was in that city.
OF course everybody will want tt
know when the case can get before tht
court. The truth is that Governor Till
man has requested, and Attorney Gen
eral Buchanan has joined in the re
quest, that Chief Justice McIVer cal
an extra session of the court as soon a:
possible. The request was sent to the
Chief Justice few days ago and nj!
answer is expected today or tomorrow
If the request is acceded tc the extra
session Will be held the last of thi:
month OF the first of September. The
court will consist Of Chief Justice Nc
liver and Associate Justices Pope anc
Eugene Gary.
The case is to go to the court on ex
ceptions to the decision of Judge AL
drich and the points to be argued have
also been agreed upon. They are az fol
lows:
EXCEPTIONS OF THE EELATORS.
TIE REALTORS except to and appeal tc
the Supreme Court of South Caroline
from the decree rendered and made
herein by his Honor Judge James A.
drich on the 18Th day of August, 1894
upon the ground that his Honor erred
as follows:
1. In holding that the respondents,
municipal corporation could set up and
plead that the Dispensary Act of 1888
is in violation of sections l. 2 and IL OF
Article of the Constitution Of the
State of South Carolina.
9. In holding that it is competent fol
the respondent to set up and plead that
the Dispensary Act of 1893 is in viola
ton of the 4sh. 5th and 18th 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.
3. In holding that the DiSpensary Act
of 1893 is an amendment of the Dis
pensary Act of 1892 ard unconstitu'
t1onal.
t. In holding that the said Act con.
stitutes monopoly in the sale of in
toxicating liquors and is therefore
void; whereas he 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 measure was necessary re-
uuirement for the regulation of the
liquor traffic, to protecs the health, NOR
ais and welfare of the people: and that
the exclusive control Ey the State of
such a recognized subject of police su-
perYision is constitutional and valid.
5. In holding that the said Act is
unconstitutional in providing for the
exclusive sale by agents OF the State
and forbiddlng all other persons;Where:
as he should have held that said Act
providing for such sale exclusively by
agents of the State is a constitutions!
exercise Of the police power OF the
State over recognized subject matter
of police supervision.
6. 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 Relators appel
liant.
EXCEPTIONS OF RESPONDENTS
The following are the exceptions OF
the respondents: :.
l. Because it is respectfully submit
ted that the relators herein had ample
remedy at law for the correction o.. any
grievance of which they complain, aud
therefore they were not entitled to the
writ of prohibition and his Honor the
Circuit Judge erred IN not 80 deciding.
2. Because the said Act of the Gene
raj Assembly OF this State violates sec
ton 8 of Article l 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 anc
void.
3. Because the said Act of the Gen
eral Assembly OF this State violates The
4th, 5.h and 14.h amendments OF the
Constitution of the United States anc
is therefore null and void.
4. Because It is respectfully submit,
ted that the ordinance of the city OF
Aiken referred to in the return herein
is authorized by section 1877 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 so 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,
M. 3. WOODWARD.
Attorneys for Respondents.
TIE AGREEMENT.
We agree that the foreg DING shall
constitute the "cas7" upon which this
cause shall be heard in the Supreme
Court OF South Carolina and that
copy thereof shall be used in lieu of
return in the Office of the clerk of sale
court.
o. w. BUCHANAN,
Attorney General for RelaLors.
G.. w. CROFT,
NJ. B. WOODWARD,
Attorneys for Respondents.
Swappsd Wives.
pANA, Ills, Aug, 22.-Judge William
Price married Mrs. Elsie Harrison
aged 36, to Edward Munday, aged 49
and Miss Lizzie McDermott, aged :52
to Thomas Ellison, aged 81, at the re