The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1896-03-24
Must Obey. the Law.
JUDGE EARLE CREATES A SENSATION.
The County Dispensarles Have Violated the
Statute and Must Suffer the Penalties.
Oreenville Mountaineer.

, Creenville Mountaineer.
,, The sensation of the week has bee,
. the firm and unyielding position O
Judge Earle in regard to the systemat
ic violations of the dispensary law, t.
which he directed special attention q
the opening of the term. The grant
jury was charged at the outset to ex
anime closely into the management o
the dispensaries, and to note whether
1t was true that the dispensers had no
: required buyers to sign application.
@ 10r liquor, as was commonly reported
This and other features of the law
were carefully explained to tho grand
jury, and as 1t was generally known
that the dispensers throughout the
State had disregarded the law in
many respects, it was expected that
the presentmcnt of the grand iury
would deal with these infractions OF
the law. But when the presentment
was made on Wednesday morning,
while 1t condemned the system OF
bookkeeping and reported that the
law had been loosely administered,
there was no specific charges against
law: This was unsatisfactory to Judge
Earle, and he proceeded at once to
make some remarks to the panel,
which caused a reversal of their judg-
ment and resulted in an appendix to
their report. The remarks of Judge
Earle were substantially as follows
Referring to so much of your pre-
sentiment as relates to the dispensary,
II the county dispensers have sold al
cohol1c liquors as you now report,
then they have violated the plain pro-
NJ ofaf f,,f
thorized to dispense liquors only as
the statute directs, and if they make
sales IN any other manner they are
just as guilty as the man who runs q
blind tiger, as it is called.
You have presented many persons
at this term for violations of this
statute, and many persons have been
convicted and sentenced. You have
done your duty as to them, but if the
county dispensers have also violated
the statute, they should likewise be
presented, and if they are guilty they
should be punished. Law will be re-
spected by the people only when it is
enforced without discrimination and If
the individual citizen is to be punish
ed for violating the statute land it is
right that he should be) the officer
who disregards it's plain provisions
should not be excused. Indeed the
law should be more strictly enforced
against the officer than the private
citizen for the former is not only
subject to the primary duty incumbent
upon all persons req airing obedience
to law, but he has also resting upon
him the obligations incident to his
Office.
"If the county dispensers have vio-
lated the law in the matters referred
to by you then it is your duty to pres
ent them. have no right to dictate
70 you; l havo endeaaored to do my full
duty in declaring to you the law.
Whether you will do your duty, and
what you will do in the promises,
must be left to you. You are the
grand inquest of the ocounty and no one
has the power to control you in your
deliberations"
The grand jury took several hours
of Judge Earle, and finally came into
court with the additional presentment,
which specifies Dispensers Hill and
Holtzclaw as violators of the law. No
action has been taken by the court as
yet in regard to the presentment, but
1T is safe to say that Messrs. Hill and
Holtzclaw will be prosecuted. The
unusual course pursued by Judge Earle
in this instance has excited much
comment in the community. Reform
ers are outspoken against this resort
to an uncommon method of procedure,
in order to induce the grand Jury to
present these officials. They claim
that 1t was coercive measure, and
that the court had no right to " go
behind the returns," as the grand jury
had provided for a thorough examina-
tiop into the conduct of the public
offices, including the dispensaries, and
the court should have bided tho tim.
until this examination was made and
their action repol ted.
The following are the sections of the
presentment bearing upon the dispen-
saries:
We have made such examination of
the two dispensaries in the city of
Greenville as our time would permit
The system Of bookkeeping which we
found is not at all satisfactory. No
person can gather from the books, as
kept, the condition of the dispensary
without great expenditure of time.
And it Is impossible to gather from the
books in which are kept the expense
accounts what the expenses are, or
whether the entries Of money paid on
account OF expenses are proper or not.
The names OF persons to whom money
has been paid on account of expenses
are enLereu WltnOuG any menJlOn D6lng
made In q great many instances of the
articles furnished by the persons to
whom the money was paid, and in
many instances no vouchers have been
preserved so that it is impossible for
| the grand jury to tell from the books
or otherwise except from the state
, ments of the dispensers and their
clerks whether the expenses charged
are proper or not. But we do not
think either Of the dispensers in the
city of Greenville or their clerks have
been dishonest, or that they have
wrongfully appropriated any moneys
passing through their hands.
We found that prior to about the 1st
day OF March, 1896, requests for the
purchase of liquors at the dispensaries
in the city were not filled out and
signed as required by law, in that in
many instances from two to four per-
sons purchasing whiskey would sign
the same request, Ia which requests so
signed was not stated the age and resi-
dence of each OF the persons signing
the same, and while the liquors pur-
chased by persons signing such re-
quests were entered thereon, there was
nothing therein indicating the quantity
and kind purchased by each said per.
sons, and great many OF the sigma
lures to q great many of the requests