The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1900-06-14
The Dispensary Matter.

| Representative j. d. DlaCk, aliu DlSpcHooi
J. d. Fielder went up to Columbia tor a
hearing before the State board OF control
in reference to the Bamberg diSpensary
matter. They returned the same evening
The State gives the following account OF
the proceedings before the board:
The case of the appointment OF the
Bamberg county board of control was dis
cussed and considered at length. The
members of the beard were inclined to the
opinion that the appointments, under the
circumstances, were unfortunate, mas
much as they were made upon the recon-
mendstion of Senator Mayfield, who had
failed, it has since developed, to consult
with Representative Black in regard to
the matter. The names of the appointees
were transmitted to the State board by
Senator Maytield over the telephone
wires, and the State board preSuming that
Mr.. Black had been consulted, made the
appointments, against which Mr.. Black
subsequently, protested. The only ques-
ton now is that the appointment Of the
Bamberg county board having been duly
made, has the State board the legal right
to review or to revoke its action! This
question has been referred to the attorney
general for his opinion, which it is eX-
pected he will render at once"
Up to this writing, Attorney General
Bellinger has not yet rendered his
opinion, consequently the matter is still
undecided. The section he will be called
upon to construe is section Of the dis
pensary law passed by the last legislature,
and reads as follows:
That the county boards of control be
appointed by the board of State directors
in the manner now provided by law, by
and with the advice and consent OF the
members of the Senate and House Of Rep
resentatives from the respective counties,
or majority thereof; the county dispen-
sers shall be elected by the county boards
of control. Provided that no person shall
be elected county dispenser or clerk who
is related within the 9th degree by blood
or marriage with any member OF the
board of directors of the State dlspensary,
with the dispensary commissioner, or
with any member of the county board OF
control by whom such county dispenser
or clerk are to be elected.
! ALL COUNTY BOARDS ILLEGAL.
Since the above was put in type Attor-
ney General Bellinger has rendered his
opinion, which is printed below in full.
His opinion knocks out all the new county
boards and reinstates the old boards. Mr..
Bellinger takes the grounds that the
county boards should De commissioned by
the governor, and they, being commits
stoned by the State board, are not legal
bodies. Here is the decision in full:
Hon. Leon J. Williams, Chairman State
Board of Directors, Columbia, S: c.
Dear Sir: am just in receipt of your
letter of this date, in which you say: ,
"On - day of - 1900, this board,
being desirous of appointing the county
board of control for Bamberg county, as
provided in section 6, page 44O, of the act
of 1900, addressed to the Hon. S. G. May
field. senator from said county, a commu-
nication as follows:
"Ofice of the State Board of Directors,
South Carolina Dispensary, Columbia, 5.
c., March 10, 19O0-Dear Sir: You will
please confer with your delegation, and
send to this office by April the names
and addresses of three suitable persons to
be appointed on the county board of con-
troll for your county at the April meeting
of this board, and greatly oblige.
"By request of board of directors. Very
respectfully, B.C. WEBB, Clerk"
In response to this was received let
ter, of which the following is a copy:
Letter of Mr.. Mayfield names the three
members of the county board to be ap-
pointed)
Thereupon the State board of directors,
presuming and acting upon which since
proves misapprehension, viz: that the
members of the Senate and House OF KEEP
resentatives" of said county, cor ma
iority thereof" consented to and advised
the appointment of the members sug-
gested by Senator Mayfeld, proceeded at
once to make the suggested appointments.
Since the resignation of Mr.. Crum as
member Of the House Bamberg county
has but one representative, the Hon. J. B.
Black. We have been officially notified
that Mr. Black neither advised nor con-
sented in the appointments, and has for
mally entered his protest against the
same.
The members of the new county board
so appointed by US were commissioned by
the State board of directors only.
We desire your opinion on the follow
ing questions:
I. Were such appointments legal and
valid9
2. If not, what steps, if any, are proper
and necessary to remove the appolntees
3. What force and effect have the acts
of the new board performed since the
date of their appointment
Without restating the facts proceed to
a consideration of the legal questions in
volved.
/. In section 6, of the last "dispensary
act" (acts 1900, page 440) it is provided
that the county boards of control be ap-
pointed by the board of State directors IN
the manner now provided by law, by and
with the consent and advice of the men,
bers of the Senate and House OF Repre-
sentatives from the respective counties,
or majority thereof" etc.
Your statement shows that not even "a
majority of the members representing
Bamberg county'in the General Assembly
| consented to" or advised" the appoint
ments named by your honorable board,
and am of the opinion that your action
therein was nullity, as ultra wires, and
that said attempted appointments were
like this the delegated power to appoint
officers, like the power of removal, is
strictly construed, and to have effect, es-
pecially where such appointees are to
succeed others in Office, such appoint
ments are to be made in conformity with
tue requirements of the statute comforting
the power.
g. 1t will be observed that the section
quoted refers to the act of 1895, which, in
section (page 127) prescribes that the
persons County board) SO appointed shall
hold their offices for term OF two years
and until their successors are appointed:
The members of the county board
of control shall qualify and be commits
stoned as are other county officers without
fees therefor" This section, so far as
quoted, is not expressly repealed by the
act of 1900, and not being Inconsistent
with the provisions of the latter, is still
of force.
The county board of control, elected
undar tho art of 1S9R holds over until