The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1896-01-08
May the Supreme Court
Sit !?
The QUESTION Raised as to its
Constitutionallty.


other day as to the power of the
Supreme Court Of South Carolina, as it
is now constituted, to hear and decide
cases, has awakened a great deal of in-
terest 10 Charleston Many important
cases in the lst circuit are to come be-
fore the Conrt within few days, and
everyone has been interested to learn
what the answer to the question raised
would be-
Solicitor W. St Julian Jervy, whoe
was a member Of the Constitutional
Convention, and who will be engaged
in many of the cases which are soon to be
brought before the Court, has prepared
for THE Neacs and Courier the following
opinion oa the question raised. 1t will
be seen that Solicitor Jervey quotes
from the OLD and the new Constitution,
and then gives authorities supporting
construction of the passage which
makes the sitting of the Court vailed !:
l. The Supreme Court shall consist
of a Chief Justice aud three Associate
Justices, any three Of whom shall co.,
stitute quorum for the transaction Of
business" Constitution 1895, Article
5, Section 9.
1.-The present Chief Justice and AS
sociate Justices Of the Supreme Court
are declared to be the Chief Justice and
two Of the Associates of said Court as
herein established, until the time for
which they were elected shall expire,
and the General Assembly at its next
session shall elect the third Associate
Justice and make suitable provision for
accomplishing its classification above
described" /" Constitution 1895, Arti-
Gle 5. Section 2.
The provision under the old CoDsti-
tuition was very similar.
The Supreme Court shall consist of
the Chief Justice and the two Associ
ate Justices, any two Of whom shall
constitute quorum" Constitution
1868. Article 4, Section 3.
While. therefore, the section un-
der consideration does declare in gen.
eral terms that the Supreme Court shall
consist of Chief Justice and two As
sociate Justices, this general declaration
is qualified by the words Immediately
following, in the same sentence, 'auy
two of whom shall constitute quorum.
the plain meaning Of which is that
while the number composing the full
court is three, yet any Two of the three
named shall constitute a quorum for
the transaction of any business COM
mit:ed to such tribunal, The language
beiog any two of the three officials
Just named we are unable to conceive
by what authority Court could coz
strpe such language as confniDg the
provision to sor,c particular two CT the
three; for that would entirely destroy
the force Of the word any, and render
necessary the Interpolation of some
other words cot found in the section"
Williams vs.. Benet, 35 S. c., 153.
"It is coutended herein that this can
not be constitutional quorum wishous
there is 10 existence the full nun Der of
members provided for by the constitu-
ton. If this rrcposition be true as ap-
piled to the Supreme Court, we see no
reason why it should not be true of
every other body of which a number
less than the whole is legally declared
to be quorum and we think we may
safely venture to say that such a propo-
sition as to any other body has never
been accepted, and never could be &C.
cepted as correct, without paralyzing to
some extent at least the arm of at least
two Of the great departments oe the
Government. Such proposition rests
upon the fundamental misconception of
the term quorum and the purposJ OF
which it is used. The very purpose 10
providing for the transaction of bust
ness of any given body or tribunal by
quorum is to prevent the stoppage of
the public business when portion of
the whole membership may from any
canse fail to attend at the time ap-
pointed, and whether such failure re-
suits from death or some temporary
cause cannot affect the question The
mischief intended to be provided
against is the failure of the whole num-
ber to attend; and We do not see how
it can possibly make any difference
whether such failure results from one
cause or another" Williams VS.. Benet,
35 S. c., 154
'The Constitution 10 The section re.
ferred to has invested any two Of ;ne
Justices with full power to discharge
all of the functions OF this Court. -
Sullivan VS.. Speigbts, II S. c., 35s.
In this case the Court vas 60: full!
because no election bad been held to
ill the vacancy caused by Judge Has