The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1901-07-24
s. c. New

carefully considered the defenSe OF Ine
CITY government of Charleston, pre-
sented through the honorable mayor,
Mr.. Smyth, and Chief Police Boyle,
to show cause why the dispensary
profits accruing to said city should not
be withheld under section 9 Of the
dispensary law, to be used for the bet
ter enforcement of said law find as
follows:
show. and in fact admitted, that the
dispensary law was not properly en-
forced in the city of Charleston.
Second, That the defendants sue
ceeded apparently in establishing the
fact that the county government OF
Charleston is largely responsible for
the non-enforccement of the dispensary
law in the city of Charleston.
"Third, That the city government
Through it's representatives, admits
its primary responsibility for such
failure, in that council has failed to
enact an ordinance forbidding the
illicit sale of liquors, providing ade-
ouate penalty for the violation of such
ordinance, to be imposed by the re-
corder, in case of convictions; there
fore be it
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 dis
pensary law in the city of Charleston,
until such time as the State board
may be convinced that the city author
tiles have discharged every obligation
resting upon them.
"Resolved, second, That the
Charleston county board Of control is
hereby instructed to remit to the
State treasurer the portion of the
profits that would go to the ciSy OF
Charleston, but for the passage Of the
above resolution, and that a copy
hereof be sent to the mayor and chair
man of the county board of CONTROL
The resolution under which the
State board requested the Charleston
officials to appear before the board
was adopted July Sd. 1t reads: Re
solved, That the mayor and chief OF
police of the city of Charleston are
hereby accorded the privilege, and
are requested to appear at the Office
of the State board of dicrectors in Co
lumbia, S. c., on the 18th inst. at 10
O'Clock a. NJ, to show cause, if any
they have. why the dispensary profits,
accruing to said city should not be
withheld under sections 9 of the dispen-
sary law, to be used for the better en-
forcement OF said law"
The board gets its authority for yes
serdav's action from the following sec,
tion of the dispensary law: All
profits, after paying all expenses Of the
county dispensary, shall be paid one
half of 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
board of control do not enforce the
law, the State board may withhold
the part going to said town or city,
and use itE to pay State constables or
else turn it into the county treasury" Z"
The resolution depriving the city of
Charleston of her dispensary profits
was passed unanimously and without
any fireworks or speeches. The deh-
mite purpose of the board as to the
means of carrying out the provisions
of these resolutions is not known, but
it is believed from the trend of the
examination of Mayor Smyth that the
board wants Charleston to pass an
ordinance imposing a heavy fine upon
illicit liquor dealers. The alleged
non enforcement Of the law could not
then be said to be due to the routine OF
swearing out warrants before making
searches.