The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1895-12-19
THE STATES LEGAL BATTLES.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALS AN.
NUAL REPORT.
Year OF Extraordinary Litigation
me registration and Dispcnsary

: The annual report OF Attorney Gen
: eral Barber contains some interesting
. information as to the large number OF
/ very important cases the department
has had to deal with during the past
= year. 1t Is quite u remarkable fact
, that notwithstanding the eighty cases
handled, which is very much larger
number than usual, and the fact that
most OF them were Of u worry important
character, the Attorney General makes
recommendation that only two fees fol
outside assistance be paid These are
the fees of General McCrady and
George S. Mower, Esq, who were
called TO assist in the registration
! cases.
Attorney General Barber gives a
brief statement Of all the cases arising
during tho year and the status Of those
still pending on appeals to the higher
courts is fully and most pcrspicuously
explained.
A good proportion of the eighty
cases have not been iiually aljudicnt-
ed as yet
In concluding his report, Attorney
General Barber says:
by law the Attorney General is re-
quired to give advice to all State
officers. During the present year the
new scheme Of county government cs-
tablished by the General Assembly
went into operation. In consequence Of
the change, which had to be made
suddenly, and the apparent inconsis-
tcnclcS between the new act and the
old acts under which the county gov
crnment was administered by the old
county commissioners, the now officers
elected under the law experienced
great difficulty Hndo ocmbarrassment in
its construction.
Numerous inquiries from nearly
cvery county in the State wore made
by ia. Attorney General as to the
proper Interpretation OF the law For
the purpose of aiding tho now officers
elected in tho discharge of thoir
duties and to produce uniformity in it's
execution, an exposition OF tho act wps
prepared and sent to each county su.
pervisor in the State. The views OF
this otlice wore generally adopted and
the new scheme has been puC in sue
cessfully operation and is now working
we'll.
1.-The dispensary act, approved Sd of
January, A. d. 1894, went into opera
tion Immediately after its approval.
In some OF its features it was more
stringent than the other acts on this
subject, and it has been vigorously and
persistently assailed during tho year
in both the State and United States
courts.
:" Its cOnstitutionality was assailed
IN tho United States courts on various
grounds. Numerous actions for dam
ages have been brought on the law
side against constables for the seizure
of liquors in, which damages were
claimed. These were based principal.
ly upOI> 49," ~ -"nnds that the act Is j.
jreooniear~a e constitution nf ,.5e
United States and tho acts OF Congress
relating to interstate commerce, ind
that it establishes a monopoly in the
liquor traffic in restraint OF trade.
I'm equity, suits have also boen in
stitutea praying ]. injunction to re-
strain the 81 tables and other
officers from S >rs imported
into the State ,sc and Tor
searches, for such at
tho residences q. Judge
SimOnton, in tn, Donald
VS.. j. NJ. Scott an, led an
Injunction rcstrai.. g aCGn-
stables from sciZinl fed
into the State for pc. which
is still OF force. An been
taken from his decree :. promo
Court Of the United Stat,;.,; hich is
now pending, and which, wh.t adju-
dicatcd, will! settle tho question OF the
right Of ~ citizen to import within the
State for hS own uSc. Another suit
in equity, instituted by james Dunbar
vs. John Gary Evans and other mem
brrS OF thu State board of control, and
others, is still pcuding in the.Circuit
Court.
" In this action the diSDcnsary act Is.
nssailed urpn numerous constitutional
grounds. The bill charges that it is
IN conflict with many sections Of the
constitutions o. the United States and
the State.
"As will be seen from report OF
the cases, IL great many contempt pro-
cccdings were instituted before the
United States Ci"cuit Court TO punish
cunstablc., for violations OF the order
Of injunction granted by Judge Simon
ton. When these "c"c heard, Judge
G. II. SimontOn explained the order
and held that where cOnstablCs acted
from facts, or infcrcnccs OF facts,
showing the liquor was intended for
sale and not for personal use, in MAX
ing seizures they would be Justified in
their action. In the numerous cases,
but three c0nstables were adjudged
in cOntemp for disObcdicnce of the or
der. This ruling deferred many i'm
portcrs from bringing liquors within
the State, under the guisc Of importing
them for perR0nal use, when they were
| fcdly lOI Sdl', duu cLdDIctt
the State constablcs to exercise q wise
discretion in making seizures, and in
this way violations OF the dispcnsary
law have been materially checked.
"ln some OF the towns and cities in
the State there has been stubborn OD-
position and resistance to the law. 1t
has been difficult in plain cases to Sc
cure convictions by jurics, notably in
Charleston. In this city it became
necessary to resort to contempt pro-
ceedings to reach offenders and to
make ~ motion for change OF venue
Of cases pending before tho grand jury
in consequence Of failure to find true
. bills
1T has required q great deal OF
, time OF tho Attorney General and the
J. Assistant during the present year tC
defend these numerous actions arising
, under the dispcnsary law.
During the present fiscal year tho
, registration and election laws Of South
Carolina were also attacked in the
courts. Four actions were instituted tt