The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-03-06
GARSED V. GREENSBORO
PLAINTIFF CLAIMS LAW IN
FRINGE ART. Z SEC. { OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
FORBlDDING A CITY TO LEND IT'S CREDIT
Except by Vote of the Qualified Voters. De-
PENDANT Alleges That the Dispensary Board
are Agents of the State and Not of the
City, Another Dispensary Case.

The case of f. T. Garsed VS.. the city
of Greensboro, involving the constitution.
atty of the dispensary law, is expected
TO come up in the Supreme Court today.
Plaintiff lost in the court below and
brought the case up on the contention
that the dispensary board are the Off
GERS and agents of the city of Greensboro
and nave no power except as said officers
and agents; that section Z article of
the constitution of North Carolina says:
No county, city, town or other munich
pal corporation shall contract any debt
pledge its faith aOr loan its credit, nor
snail any tax be levied or collected by
any officers of the same except for the
necessary expenses thereof unless by a
vote of the majority of the qualified vot-
erS therein. On this basis plaintiff con-
tends that the appropriation by the city
to establish the diSpensary was unconsti-
tutional and the city authorities were
enjoined from furnishing funds for such
purpose pending the settlement of the
case. The dispensary, is now being run
on funds supplied by the mama cling board
The defendant city contends that:
The dispensary board are not the
boro, but the agents of the State of North
Carolina, for the regulation of the sale
of liquors.. The legislature prescribed
their duties, what officers they should
elect. the duties of such officers and the
manner in which they should regulate
the sale of liquor 1t gave them juris-
diction over larger territory than the
city of Greensboro. and because it en-
II cd hn apH Of
agent to name said Board, and provided
that the bonds of the manager and treas
urer should be made payable to the city
of Greensboro. it did not intend thereby
nor did it in law, make them the ''ofti-
GERS and agents" of said city. Certainly
the agent or officer would not be cloth d
with Il greater jurisdiction than the
Board of Aldermen had themselves.
THE Legislature merely selected the
diSpenSary board through the Board of
Aldermen as its agent to name them. 1t
gave the Board of Aldermen no power
over them, but gave the power of -remOv
al for cause to the Judge of the district.
1t gave the Board of Aldermen no power
over the officers of said dispensary, nor
power to prescribe or regulate the con-
duct or management of the business"
1t also alleges that the point at issue
was virtually decided by the court III
Guy VS.. Commissioners, III, y. c., page
413.
Plaintiffs counsel in their briefs in
dulge in caustic criticism at the expense
nf the dispensary. Messrs. Bynum and
Bynum in their brief declare:
There is nothing about this diSpenasry
that should elicit the favor of the court
resolving any doubts that may arise on
these questions The city, after strug
Cling for it. seems now heartily ashamed
of it. At least it disowns and disavCws
it. SO does the county; so does every
body. The parent of blind tigers and
the fosterer of Illicit suburban distilleries.
there is no one now so poor as to do II
reverence. Its speedy demise and lasting
disappearance seem earnestly hoped for
and in such happy event we venture to
say that not even the defendants them
selves would shed tear or drop a flower
upon its final resting-place.
Col. John y. Staples. also of counsel
for plaintiff, declares that it takes more
policemen to regulate this enterprise OF
Saturday evening than it formerly took
TO regulate all the saloons i'll the cIty
under a former SYSTEM" and adds that
plaintiff might further advert TO a COM
mon rumOr. that soon after coming unto
their kingdom. they distinguished them
selves by pleading guilty in court, to an