The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1896-01-08
THE SUPREME COURT.

| AXAA Nv = ltIAh4A wv ~ ltAb
A KNOTTY QUESTION RAISED AS TC
TsLEGALITY.
Astute Lawyers Pick Flaws In the New
Constitution--The Court Called Upon to
Say Whether It is Indeed a Court.--They
VIII Let it be Known Today.
COLUMBIA, Jan. 3.-When the Su-
preme Court met yesterday after the
holiday recess they were confronted
at the outset with a question that will
no doubt puzzle them to decide. The
point was raised that the sitting jus.
tices were not a court at all, and that
the State was at present without that
necessary part of the government, a
court of the last resort. 1t would be g
startling question under ordinary cir
cumstances, but an astute lawyer may
always be depended upon to find flaws
in any legal document, and that they
would be raked up when the new con
stitution went into effect was expect,
ed. The question has been discussed
in the papers as to whether the pro
vision of the constitution which re,
ouires three associate justices instead
of two as formerly would not act SO
as to do away with the court alto
gether until the fourth judge was
elected. The point was definitely made
yesterday morning and the members
of the court took recess in order to
come TO some conclusion as to where
they were att in the premises.
The case under consideration was
that of Middleton and Ravenel VS..
Taber and Williams. M. P. 81. Gads-
den appeared for the respondents and
Mr.. T. NJ. Raysor for the appellants:
MIR. Raysor made his argument and
Mr.. Gadsden replied, during which he
raised the point of the jurisdiction OF
the court as at present constituted.
The court had evidently been apprised
of the point to be raised, for Assistant
Attorney General Townsend had been
sent for and he appeared in the court
room to argue for the validity OF the
court.
Besides Mr.. Gadsden, Solicitor Jer-
vey and Mr.. j. E. Burke Of Charles
ton were present and interested in the
outcome, as were also Messrs Raysor,
Browning and Abial Lathrop Of Or.
angeburg, all of whom had different
cases before the court, but each OF
which would be affected by the result
of the decision on the point raised by
Mr.. Gadsden. Mr.. Gadsden, as stated
brought out the pointin his argument.
In raising the question as to the jurls'
diction of the court as at present con
stituted, he read the section of the ju,
dicial article which provides that the
lSupreme Court shall consist of one
chief Justice and three associate justi-
ces. The constitution went into et'
fleet, he said, from and after December
81, and, therefore, the Supreme Court
must consist OF four members. He
contended that three could not be
quorum until the fourth one was elec'
ted. This then is not the Supreme
Court as contemplated by the constltu
Ition. The members OF the court now
may constitute q quorum of the court
as recognized by the terms of the con
stitution, but until the fourth memo Der
was elected there was no court under
the terms of the constitution.
He referred to the case where there
was vacancy in the mem bers1ip OF
the court occasioned by the death OF
Chief Justice Simpson, in which In
stance the court went right along as il
there was no vacancy. He contended
that the difference was that the court
then had been regularly organized
and that the death of the Chief Justice
did not break the quorum. In the
present case there is no court, but
three members of what was the court
are authorized to be members of the
reorganized court. he said that the
Charleston bar had come to the same
conclusion and he thought no harm
could come from delay in view OF the
| importance of the issue. Should two
of the members of the court as now
constituted agree and the third disa:
gree when the Legislature had elected
the other member he might agree with
| the dissenting member and the ques.
ton would then have to be submitted
to the court composed OF the circuit
Judges, and great trouble and contu'
sion might arise from decision rem
dered BY the court as at present con
stituted. The constitution seems to
have provided for the continuance OF
all causes, and everything else except
the court itself. 1t is provided that
all causes criminal and civil shall
continue, but not one word IS said as
to the continuance of the court itself.
Mr.. Gadsden referred to the fact that
there were cases in the city OF Charles.
ton involving large tracts OF land, and
large amounts of money, the decision
in which, if rendered by a court the
validity of whose actions was IN doubt
would work great hardships and pos
sible wrong. :,
Mr.. Raysor spoke next. He said
that he had not intended to bring out
the point made by Mr.. Gadsden. but
since it had been. he thought that a
decision could be rendered in this
case, as it involved no constitutional
questions. He had not given the sub
iect any full consideration, but he
thought that as long as no constltu
tional question was raissd the court IS
70 oerly organized. When such a
question came up he was not prepared
to say that the issue should not be
tried by a court as contemplated oy
the new constitution.
Chief Justice McIver at this point
said that the validity of the court be-
ing in question, the court had called
upon the Attorney General to be pres
ent rs one of the branches of the gov.
ernraeut was being assailed. Several
OF the attorneys present then asked to