The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1901-07-25

~ 'ic ohc Wnlch existed before
'nc olspcnsary law went into effect.
Mr. Williams asked whether the
mayor could give any instance where
state law was not enforced by special
ordinance.
Mayor Smyth replied that the Slotc
law absolutely prohibited the sale OF
anything on the Sabbath, yet by or
dinancc III Charleston milk and ic,
! and fruit and soda water could b,
legally sold without police interference
Mr.. Dukes asked whether the cit,
ought not to pass law against tn,
sale Of liquor and have the violator.
tried in the recorders court if the cit,
officials wanted to enforce the law?
Mayor Smyth said he doubted tho
legality of such Il law. The recorder
can't try man for burglary and some
other crimes. His jurisdiction is OK.
trcmciy limited, and an effort was
madc to enlarge it at the last session
hut ii didn't 80 through.
MIR. Williams, and later on Mr..
Dukes, asked The mayor whether or
not the city of Charleston did not
dominate the politics of the county,
the idea being that if the people want.
cd to enforce the law they could secure
jurics who would do their duty.
Mayor Smyth replied that the city
government Of Charleston had ab-
solutcly nothing to do with the county
or the State courts held in the city.
Mr.. Dukes asked whether Charles
ton city could not do something politi-
cally TO force the appointment of a
jury which would 10 lis duty.
Mayor Smyth said that 80 far as
politics is concerned The people of
charleston ruled the county, but thai
jury commissioners were appointed
from Columbia, and with that the city
government had nothing whatever to
do, nor did any man in it attempt to
exercise any influence.
Mayor Smyth then proceeded to
read his statement further, in which
he blamed the non-cnlurccmcnt of The
law on the county. Who may be rc-
sp0nsiblc for ii he did not state. lie
showed clearly that the grand Jury
would not bring in true bills, though
lndisputable evidence was given The
jury by police officers in uniform and
crnmcnt could not justly be held ac-
countablc for such a condition of
affairs; that Chiefs Sellers and ilowic,
who mad hccn iii Charleston, would bear
hlm out in the statement that The
police force always cu-opcra;cd with
the constablcs.
Chief lluwlc, stationed III Charles
ton, was in the building at the tlmc
and at Mayor Smylh's request he was
called in. The mayor read over tht
| statement he had made about ;hn DO
lic9AcQ-opcratng with the constahcs
antlg llowlc positively subslanLiatco
tBy Femcnt.
The mayor concluded by calling
upon the board to consider The facts
presented to it, and adding that both
himself and Chief Boyle would be
glad TO receive any suggestions from
the board as TO how they could do
better.
There was much discussion as to the
advlsabiity and the effect of passing Il
dispcnsary ordinance and having the
police bring cases before the recorder
for trial. Mayor Smy til made The
statement that the profits to The city
had never exceeded $ll 900.
Chief Boyle "callcd Il spade spade"
and told the board that no power could
absolutely cnforcc the dispcnsary law
III Charleston. He passed over with
contempt the charge that the police
had been "tamcd." He said that the
disprnsarics and beer privileges sup
piled half the blind Tigers in Charles
ton.
The directors of the Stale dispcn-
sary passed the resolution which takes
away from the city OF Charleston what
ever profits may accrue from the opera.
ton OF the local dispcnSarlcs. This
resolution will continue of effect until
the city authorities indicate that the
Illicit sale Of liquor Is Supprcsscd--lf
not cradicatcd. Mr. Williams offered
the following as the reply of The board
to the municipal authorities of Char
lesion:
"Thc State board of directors having
carefully considered the defense Of the
city government Of Charleston, pre-
scented through tie honorable mayor,
Mr.. Smyth, and Chief of Police Boyle,
'to show cause why the dlspcnsary
profits accruing to sad city should not
be withheld under section . Of the dis
pcnsary law, to be used for the better
enforcement Of said law finds as fol-
! lows:
"First, That defendants failed tt
show, and IN fact admitted, that tht
di>pcn>aiy Law was not property cn
ic:Crd ii The ~ Of Charleston.
";,,,Onu, a., defendants succeeded
Hrp"rcnty in establishing the fact Lha
the c""'.,F government Of Charleston
/ IS la - y c>ponSl5lc for the non-cu
fore '".:'' o! the dispcnsary law in tn
ca, Ol CnarlcstOn.
"i', JnL nc city g0vcrnmcl
, (lh ."%" l,o J. .prcsentatives) admit
It's r'in''y responsibility for sue
lalIurc. in that council has failed {
cna an ordinance forbidding the il
licih sa!c OF liquors, providing adcqual
pchaily .or the violation of such ord
TO L, 4 ,l,,