The Batesburg advocate. [volume] (Batesburg, S.C.) 1901-1911, 1901-07-24

ho formed the following as the reply of
the board to the municipal authorities
of Charleston:
THE ULTIMATUM.
The State board Of directors having
crefully considered the defense of the
oily government Of Charleston, pre-
sonted through the honorable mayor,
Me. Snyth, and Chief of Police Boyle,
to show cause why the 6ispenssry
profits accruing to said city should not
be withheld under section 8 Of the dis
penssry law, to be used for the better
enforcement of said law f od as fol.
lows:
First, That defendants failed to
show, sud 10 fact admitted, that the
dispensary law was not properly en-
forced in the city Of Cha lesion.
Second, Thst defendants succeeded
apparently in establishing the fact that
the county government of Charleston
is largely responsible for the non en-
forcement of the dispeussry law in the
city Of Charleston.
Third, That the city government
(through its representatives, admits it's
primsry responsibility for such failure.
ln taSt council has fsiled to enact an
ordinance forbidding the illicit sale of
liquors.. providing ado "a late ponslty for
the violation of such ordinance, to be
imposed by the recorder, in case Of
convictions; therefore be it
Resolved, That the dispen ;ary
profits accruing to the said city of
Charleston are hereby withheld to be
used FOR the pay Of State constables for
the better enforcement OF the dispsn-
say law In the city of Charleston un
til such time as the State board may
convinced that the city authorities
Have discharged every obligation rest
ing upon them.
Resolved, second, That the Charles
ten county board of control is hereby
Instructed to remit to the S:sto treas.
urer the portion of the prof IS that
would go to the city of Charleston, but
Tor the passage of the above resolution.
and that cory hereof be sent to the
mayor aud chsirmsn of the county
board of control"
THE LAW on TIE SUBJECT.
The resolution under which the State
board requested the Charleston off ii ais
to appear before the board was adopt.
ed July Sd. 1t reads: ''R ,solved. That
the mayor and chief of police Of the
city of Charleston are hereby accord
ed tho privilege, and are so requested
to appear at the office of the State
board of directors in Columbia, s. c.,
on the 10Th inst, at 10 o'c 'ock q. m.
to show cause, if any they have, why
the dlspersary profits accruing to said
city should not be withheld under sec
tien of the dispensary law, to be used
for the better enforcement of said law. 5"
The board gets its authority for
Wednesdays action from the following
section 9 of the dispensary law: "All
profits, at er paying all expenses of the
county dtspenssry, shall be paid one.
half to the municipal corporation in
which 1t may be located, such settle
ments to be made quarterly: Provided,
That If the authorities of any town or
city in the judgment of the State board
OF control do not enforce the law, the
State board may withhold the part 20
Ing to said town or city, and use it to
pay State constables or else turn it into
the county treasury"
The resolution depriving the city of
Charleston of her disponsary profits
was passed unanimously aud without
any fireworks or speeches. The definite
purpose of the board as to the means
Of carving out the provisions of these
resolutions is not known, but it is be-
lieved from the trend of the examina-
tion of Mayor Smyth that the board
wants Charleston to pass an ordinance
imposing heavy fac upon illicit ! quor
dealers. The alleged non enforcement
of the law could not then ba said to be
due to the routine Of swearing out war
rants before making searches.
Columbia has no such ordinance,
and member of the board intimated
that this city had better be SO fortified
or profits will b, held mp here until il.
lioit liquor deAlers are tried aud con
Vioted In the municipal court. How
ever Chairman Williams may be quoted
as saying that if the law were enforced
In Charleston as it is here he would be
sstisfied with Charleston.