The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1902-08-14

rious county campaign meetiugs
During the absence of Mr.. Bright
the office will be in charge Of Miss
Bright.
Why We Changed the Dispensary Law.
Because in our Judgment and in
lhc Judgment of the lawyers IN the
House it was necessary to do so to
make the law constitutional. The
Constitution of 1885 says, "tbe
General Assembly shall not enact
local and or special laws concern.
ing any Of the following subjects "
and then names ten special sub
.jHcts, the Dispensary, however, is
not one of them. But just after
nnming those ten subjects, sub
division If of the same section
reads as follows: "In all other
Cases, where Il general law can be
made applicable, no special law
shall be enacted" Under this Sec
tion we thought and The best law
ycrs thought that the Dispensary
Law should be made general to
make it conform to the Constltu-
tinn.
Under the general dispensary
Jaw Of 1896 every town in the state
which had Il dispensary got half the
profits except this county and
Cconeo. In these two counties all
the profits went to the school fund
under the act Of 1894. In my judg-
rlcnt and the Judgment of other
lawyers whom 1 nave consulted
this act was repealed by the Con-
stitution of 1895 for IN Article II,
Section II, sub division 8, it says:
"The provision of all laws which
are inconsistent with this constitu.
ton shall cease upon it's adoption"
and there are other provisions in
the same article to the same effect.
And I believe this act is in conflict
with the constitution for it was
local law relating to only Oconee
and Pickens counties.
We made another change in Dis
pensary law which we thought nee.
cssary in order TO make it conform
to tho Constitution Of 1896. The
The general dispensary law of 1896
Sec. says: "That any county,
town or city wherein the sale OF
alcoholic liquors was prohibited by
law prior to July, 1, 1928, may .se-
cure the establishment OF dispen-
sary within lis borders in thu fol-
lowing manner: Upon petition
signed by one. fourth of the quail
fled voters of such county, town or
city wishing q dlspensary therein
being ilcd with the County Super
visor or town or city council, re-
spectively, they shall order an elec-
tion submitting the question of dis
pensary or No Dispensary to the
qualified voters of such county,
town or city" etc. and q majority
of the totes should control for or
against. But the same section had
this provision: Provided, That
Dispensarles may be established in
the counties of Williamsburg. Pick
ems and Marion and at Seneca and
other towns tnow incorporated in
Oconee county without such elec~
tion or compliance with the other
requirements Of this act''. Pick
ems county was dry prior to 1893
aud dispensary was located in
tho town under this last provision
and no election held in the town.
Inst winter the Board of Control Of
williamsburg county undertook to
locate q dispensary at Lake City,
a town in that county, and some Of
the residents Of the town employed
lawyers who brought an action to
prevent it, and one of the grounds
was that on account Of the provis.
ion in the law above quoted, rela.
ting to the four counties named,
the Dispensary law was unconsitu.
tional, and am informed by one
OF the attorneys ia the case that
tho Attorney General consented to
an order to perpetually enjoin the
Board of Control from locating a
dispensary in said town. BY con-
senting to this order 1t preven ted a
dicision beiog rendered by the
Courts OTTO the Constitutionality
of tho Dispensary law. This wea
done in February Of this year.
Az soon as Ii became known
among the members Of the Lsgisla'
ture that the Dispenaary law was
being attacked On this ground, We
went to wogk and paased an act
meking tho lew Eenasal Ia this
respect,
The sqhaola attll gat the ngeAta
S.am tho atata nlsnansAgg ARa will