The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1901-07-24
DEBARRED PROFITS.
chaT|eston's 0ispsnsary Profits
Takan Away on Account Of
LAW NOT sEINo ENFORCED.
Text of the Preamble and
Resolution Adcp.sd by
the State Board
Wednss lay.

Wecnss
The State Of Thursday says the
directors Of the State dispensary We'd
nesday afternoon passed the resolut;Jn
which takes away from the city Of
Charleston Wha evsr profits may ac-
crue from the operation Of the local
di5pensaries. This resolution will con-
tinue Of efao. until the city authori-
ties indicate that the Illicit sale Of
liq1or is suppresssd-if not eradicsted.
Mr.. Williams Was feeling uaWell, but
he formed The folio as the reply Of
the board to the municipal authorities
of Charleston:
THE ULTIMATUM.
'The State board Of directors having
carefully considered the defense Of the
city government of Charleston, pre-
sented through the honorable mayor,
Mr. Sny:h, and Chief Ct Police Boyle,
| to show cause why the di.pensary
profits accruing to said city should not
be withheld under section 9 Of the dis
pensary Law, to be used for the better
enforcement Of said laR, fad as fol-
lows:
First, That defendants failed to
show, and in fact admitted, that the
dispensary law was not properly en-
forced in the city Of Cha lesion.
Second, That defendants succeeded
apparently in establishing the fact thss
the county go7efnmens Of Charleston
is largely responsible for the 1on.en-.
forccment Of the dispenSary law in the
city o. Charleston.
Third, That the city government
(through its representatives, admits its
primary responsibility for such failure:
il that couacil has failed to enact an
ordinance forbidding the Illicit sale Of
liquors, providing adtq late panal;y 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 psy Of State constsbles for
the better enforcement of the dispen-
say law in the city Of Charleston, IN
til such time as the State board may
be convinced that the city authorities
have discharged every obligation rest
ing upon them.
Resolved, second, That the Charles
ton county board Of control is hereby
instructed to remit to the S:ate treas
urer the portion Of the pro6:s that
would go to the city Of Charleston, bu'.
for the passage Of the above resolution,
and that a copy hareof be sent to the
mayor and chairman Of the county
board of control"
THE LAW ON THE SUBJECT.
The resolution uader which tie State
board requested the Charleston off ,isls
to appear before the board was adopt
ed July 81. It reads: r. R,solved. That
the mayor and chief of police Of the
city Of Charleston are hereby accord
ed the privilege, and are so requested
to appear at the Office of the State
beard Of directors in Columbia, 8. G.,
on the 18th inst, at 10 O'Clock a. m,
to show cause, if any they have, why
the dispenssry profits aecruing to said
city should not be withheld under sec
tien of the dispensary law, to be used
for the better enforcement Of said law"
The board gets its authority for
Wednesdays action from the following
section 9 Of the dispensary law: AL
profits, af,er paying all expenses Of the
county dispensary, shall be paid one
half to the municipal corporation in
which it 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 beard
Of control DO not enforce the Law, the
State board may withhold the part 90
ing to said town or city, and use it to
pay State constabies or else turn it into
the county treasury"
The resolution depriVing the city of
Charleston of her dispensary profits
was passed unanimously aud without
any fireworks or speeches. The definite
purpose Of the board as to the means
CT carrying out the provisions Of these
resolutions is not known, but it is be-
lie7ed from the trend Of the examina-
tion Of Mayor Snyth that the board
wants Charleston to pass an ordinance
inposings heavy 6ae upon illicit LIQUOR
dealers. The alleged non enforcement
of the law could no: then b, said to be
Que to the routine Of swearing out war
rants before making searches.
Columbia has no such ordinance,
and a member Of the board intiusted
that this city had better be SO fortified
or profits will b he'd up here until IL
lici5 liquor dealers are tried and con
7icted IN the municipal court. How
ever Chairman Williams may be quoted
as saying that if the law we're enforced
in Chsriestoa as it is here he would be