The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1898-10-26
The Berkeley Case.
JUSTICE McIVER WILL
NOT RESCIND HIS IN
JUNCTION.

appeared before. Chief Justice Mclver.
at this place, aud en- petition for writ
of ceetiorari obtained an order restrain
log the county executive committee
from holding second election, aa or
dered By the State executive com mis'ee
TO decide whether Mr. G W Sanders
or Mr. j. B. Morrison should be the
candidate of the Democratic party for
sheriff OF Berkeley County
Mr. Sanders had beeo declared by
she county executive committee the
pominee for sbe party, aud M Morri-
son stated that be would contest the
primary e!eotioo. The executive CON-
mittee refused to sustain bis contest.
aud be stated that be would appeal to
the State executive committee. That
committee ordered the cousty cor nit
tee to hear the contest, aod they aga'o
decided that Mr.. Sanders was the pom
inee Mr. Morrison again Appealed 20
the State executive committee, who
ordered second primary Mr. San
ders. through his attorney, ssked for 40
iujuocsioo. which vas granted
As the meeting ofsbe State executive
committee lass week the commisfee
tried TO rule Mr.. Sanders ous of the
party because he had appealed to the
Law for bis protection. and resolution
vas introduced declaring Mr Morrison
ehe uomiuee of the Democratic party
Il vas pointed out that it they did any
such thing .bay would be 10 cOusemp: of
Judge McIver's order, and 1t vas tdeu
decided that Mr Morrison be empower
ed 20 employ counsel, and that Judge
McIver be asked to resciDd and vacase
hi. order
Accordingly. Mr. Jaliao Mitchell, !,
Jr.. Of Charleston. vas employed, aud
ne and Mr Morrison appeared before
Judge McIver b=re to-day asking for
sach action.
Mr.. Hawkins K. jenkins. Of Mouek 8
Goroer. representing Mr.. Sapdera. was
stsu oo hand.
The eouosel submitted arguments
fser which Justice McIver rendered
4oe following opioioo
Chief Justice McIver stated that this
was a very important matter and one
rbas he would much prefer some tine
20 consider more fully before reoderipg
ais decision, bus that Recognizing sha.
1t vas q question which demanded
prompt attention, be would Dot keep
tbeu, waitiDe. he stated in substance
that this was . question ~bica the
whole State vac interested io That
be oply question before bin was ooe
Of law. De said tba. it appeared to
him that the Legislature had acred vesy
wisely 10 making such q Law as they
bad 10 reference to primary elections.
The Legislature iD it's law making
power has seen fit and very properly to
provide for the holding of primary eleo-
tious for State and county Offices sepa-
,ateiy. that is uoder separate beads.
The executive committee must follow
the rules Of the party right or wrong !;
aud they appear to me to be very good
rules 1t appears that the State ezecu
tive committee has ne jurisdicsior DOR
riebs 20 bea. contest 10 refereoee 60
coua,y officers Tne constitution and
rules must ;, construed separately.
The constisusioo itself seems to nae to
provide and declare bow these rules
should be construed. County execu
tive committees have the right, and the
sole right TO decide IN reference to
county candidates. The State execc
tive committee deals with reference to
State aud Congres>ioua candidates
This appears to me to be the true con-
s,ructiou of the rules sud the coostisu
ton.
don't think the State executive
committee had any right to review
the action of the county executive
committee these rules take the place
of a statute.
1t seems that after the primary the
county executive committee declared
Mr. Sanders the nominee They re
eused to hear Mr. Marrison's contest
ON the ground tba. proper notice bad
not been served on Sanders The
State executive committee ordered
that they hear the contest They
complied and again declared Mr
Sanders the nominee
The State executive committee
then ordered second primsry lie
said that under the rules and consti-
tuition they had no right TO order a
second primary. He holds that no
man can be called upon to answer a
charge without having been served
with proper papers Common jus
tice demands this in this case 1t is
very clear that this was not done,
and, admitting ,hs. the State execu'
tive committee had jurisdiction orig
IL: