The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1905-08-30
liquors or beverages.

| which time such questions as dis
pensary" or mo dispensary'' can be
submitted to the people, and has
failed to prescribe the manner iD
, which such election shall be held and
results ascertained.
ca That under the general elecnoD
law the election should be held the
first Tuesday following the first Moe
day in November, 1895, and each sec>
ond year thereafter; that if it shoul6
oe held under this law such specia3
questions as "dispensary' or 'nc'
dispensary'' should be submitted &c,
| the people, then such election coul3
| only be held the first Tuesday of No
vember, 1906, and that T. ]. Beten-
baugh had no authority to order said
election for any other time.
(e) By virtue of a majority Of the
votes being for mo dispensary" levles
a special tax upon the tax payers OF
Union county, which is in violation OF
| article /, section of the constitution
Furthermore, that this bill originates
in the senate, when under the con-
stitution, article 8, section IS, Bills
for raising revenue shall originate lH
the house of representatives, but may
| be altered, amended or rejected by
the senate, and all other bills may
originate in either house, and nag
be altered, amended or rejected By
the other"
The plaintiff alleges upon informa-
ton and belief that the petition foT
an election on the question Of 3'dis-
pensary'' or mo dispensary'' was not
signed by one-fourth Of the qualified
voters of Union county, and that the
supervisor ordered it without ascer-
tanning same; that the plaintiff is id
formed and believes the election was
i fraudulently and illegally held ana
conducted, in that many persons who
were not qualified voters were allow
ed to vote, and many persons who
were qualified voters were not allow
ed to vote; persons were allowed TO
vote at precincts other than those az
which they resided; no registration
books were furnished the Managers
as required by law, and in nauy'
ways the law was not complied with
and as a result of this fraud ana
these irregularities the election re-
suited in mo dispensary," whereas
if it had been conducted according
to law, it would have resulted IN
favor of the dispensary. That the
plaintiff, as a citizen and resident OF
Union county, has right to pur-
chase intoxicating liquors from af6
dispensaries, and il same are cIoseo.-
as threatened, the plaintiff and other
citizens of Union county will be de-
prived of their rights and privilege
to purchase alcoholic liquors, as he
or they desire to do, and the county
will be deprived Of the revenue it IS
entitled to under the provisions
of the dispensary law.
On these grounds the plaintiff
prays that the injunction be issued
to prevent the said dispensssries
from closing, and the election 70 be-
declared unconstitutional, illegal ana
void
Following this are af5davits signe5
! by J. B. Wilbanks and A B. pur-
CESS, mill operatives ,and ]. F. VIZ
banks, farmer, who allege. :i7aI
| they did not authorize the signing OF
their names to the petition, and thaE
as taxpayers they will be damaged
because the election cost the cous-
ty $500.
The effect OF this injunction pro-
ceeding is to keep the dispensary
and beer privileges open at least ua-
til Wednesday, September 9Th, not
withstanding the result of the cleo
ton. 1t is intimated that the neu1-
bers of the county board of controS
might not answer the complaint on
the day set, which would make
this injunction permanent, as by an
swering it the election would pro,aa-
bly, be declared legal anu binding,
and the men would lose their posi-
tions. However, this may be ontv
guess work, as it is believed that any
way some Of the defendants will an
swer the complaint in their endeay-
or to see the will of the majority ox
the people carried out
Hayward Alderman. a son CT *
Sheriff Alderman, of AikeIB County
| ID