The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1902-01-17

porste school districts 6 To au-
thorize the adoption or legitimation
of children. 7. To provide for the
protection of game. s. To sum-
mon and empsnel grand or petit ju'
rors. 9. To provide for the age at
which citizens shall be subject to road
or other public duty. 10. To fix
the amount or manner of compensa-
tion to be paid to any county officer,
except that the laws may be so made
as to grade the compensation in pro,
portion to the population and neces-
sary service required. II. In all
other cases, where a general law can
be made applicable, no special law
shall be enacted. IL. The general
assembly shall forthwith enact gen
eral laws concerning said subjects for
said purposes, which shall be uni
form in their operations: Provided,
that nothing contained in this section
shall prohibit the general assembly
from enacting special provisions in
general laws"
In determining the constitutional
ity of the foregoing Act it will be
necessary to construe the words "to
summon and empanel jurors"
It is contended by the respondent
that they do not include the listing
AMI drawing OF jurors
In reaching conclusion upon this
question, we must look to the evil
which the constitution wished to up
root.
|. The jury laws throughout the State
were various and we're productive of
great confusion and uncertainty.
The object Of the constitution WIS
to make the jury law uniform through
/ ont the entire State, and this can only
be accomplished by interpreting the
words summon and empanel" to in,
clude listing and drawing Of jurors.
Having reached this conclusion we
will next consider whether the act
can be considered as special provis-
ion in a general law.
: While the act purports to be only
an amendment it is, in effect, a sub
stitute for the law then by force on
this subject, and deals with the en-
tire question of listing and drawing
Jurors. 1t must therefore be con-
strued as an independent act, and can
not be regarded as special provision
in a general law.
The next question that will be con-
sidered is whether it can be construed
to be valid general law.
|: In Dean VS. Spartauburg, 50 S. Q.
11O, the court says: I'm order that a
law may be general it must be Of
force in every. county in the State,
and while it may contain special pro-
visions making its effect different in
certain counties those counties can
not be exempt from its entire opera.
ton"
The provision Of the act that Gin
Aiken county the jury shall be listed
and drawn as provided by the county
Government law" shows that it was
not intended to be of force in that
county.
The provision that in the counties
of Apbevllle, Edgefeld, Lexington
and Greenwood the jury list should
be preparedain the manner therein
set forth shows that the operation of
the act was not unif .rm throughout
the State. But constituting the act
as an amendment it cannot be de-
clsred to be constitutional, for the
reason that it substantially changes
the general law as to jurles, and pre-
vents uniformity in all the counties
of the State upon that subject. Even
if it should be contended that this is
special provision in general law,
it could not be construed to be con
stitutional, as it prevents in a sub
stantiel manner uniformity in the
jury law throughout the State.
he appellants also contend that
ths county of Charleston has sepa-
rate and distinct act at page 32O,
1900, which violates the aforesaid
constitutional provision"
Even contending this to be the
fact, 1t could not have any effect in
determining whether the first act
hereinbefore mentioned was constl-
tutional, and it's consideration is i'm
material. These views are not in
consistent with the ruling in Caro-
lima Grocery Co. VS.. Burnett, 81 S.
G. 2O5, as that case did not arise Tn