The county record. [volume] (Kingstree, S.C.) 1885-1975, 1902-02-27
THURSDAY. FEBRUARY a7. 1902.
THE plsPENsARY SITUATION.
Showing the Status Rerum as to Lake
City and Scranton Oispensaries.

Showing the Status Rerum as to Lake
City and Scranton 0ispensaries.
Several articles on this subject
have eappeared in various news
papers Of the State, and none
having attempted a full statement
OF the AFFAIR we submit the follow
Ing as a condensed and more &C
cIra.e account of a matter that
promises to be enc of no small
interest to the public.
Some time early in January
last a number of citizens OF Lake
City and Scranton being opposed
to the establishment OF dispensa-
ries In either Of these towns, and
being advised that the steps then
being taken to establish dispense.
ries in these places were illegal,
determinedtaa test tho matter in
court. LateFiA January they re-
tained We Bass, Esq, of Lake
City, who had suggested that the
matter, if tested, be carried to the
supreme court, and he being in
formed that s. w. &. Shipp, Esq,
Of Florence, had also been consult
ed in the matter. asked that he be
associated with him in the case.
These distinguished gentlemen,
having the matter in charge, pre-
pared a petition frem each town
addressed 10 the supreme court
asking that the county board OF
control of Williamsburg county
and the proposed dispensers, NJ.
nj. Rodgers and 2. A. Parker, be
perpetually enjoined from taking
any further. steps towards the es-
adjustment OF dispensaries In
Lake City and Scranton under the
notice first published Jan. 2, 1902,
under the act known as the dis
pensarv law.
The above is merely the substance
of the prayer. The petitioners re-
cite the history, step by step, of the
affair as it relates to each of the
towns. Several momeutsus ques-
tions are raised, among the most
most important are: Cd That the
notice published by the board Of
control is. fatally defective III that
it failed to, designate the townships
in which. the proposed dispensaries
were. to. be established, designating
no localities, but referring solely to
the election of dispensers; (2) that
the provision of Section VII Of the
dispensary. law of 1896 as follows:
&Proyided, that dispensaries may
be established in the counties Of
Williamsburg, Marion, Nckens,and
ut Seneca and other towns now in.
eorporated in Oconee county with
out such election. or compliance
with the other requirements Of this
act;" that this prOviso is unconsti-
tutional in that it undertakes to eX-
empt Williamsburg and the, other
named counties from the entise OPP
Grafton of the dispelsagy law; (3
that the pr0yiso apove quoted, has
no reference to the towns where the
sale of liquor was prohibited bJ law
other than and prior to the act OF
December "a, 1891, which act pro-
hibited It's sale throughout the
county. These petitions were pre-
sented, by Mr.. Shipp t" Chief JUS
tice McIver at chambers in Cheraw,
who granted rule to show cause,
if any, befose. the supreme court
April y, 1902, and an Injunction re.
strainiRg the board, Of control and
the proposed dispensers in. the
meantime from, taking any further
steps towa-d the establishment of
the proposed dispepsaries, The Or
DER and rule issued, by Judge Nc
Iver OH the ilth inst simply on the
present zion of.the. petitions with
spt noticeto the respondents. shows
that the legal points raised therein
garry consider able weight. The