The county record. [volume] (Kingstree, S.C.) 1885-1975, 1905-11-16
Will GET no PRofIIs
Law Does Not Allow Dry Counties
to Participate.


none of the surplus fund of the dis
peasary this according to an
opinion from the office of the attorney
general. 1t was not to be expected
that Cherokee would be beneficiary,
as the dispensary was voted out of
that county last year, and it was not
supposed that Marlboro and Green
wood would receive any of the fund,
for they had had no dispensiaries at
any time.
Following is the case as stated by
The comptroller general in his letter:
/ have received several communi-
cations In reference to the distribution
II the profits from the State dispen-
,ary belonging to the State school
fund, under the provisions of section
1875 of the code of 1902, as amended
as the Brice bill, "a stats, 4S7, Several
n 1899, % stats, ll2, and as fur
.her. amended by the act commonly
known as the Brice bill, "a, stats, 4S7.
Several counties in the State have,
since the passage of the last mention
I'd act, voted that no dispensary shall
De located within them, and the act
provides any county voting out a dis
pensary shall not thereafter receive
any part of the surplus that may re-
main of the dispensary school funds,
after the deficiencies in the various
county school funds have been made
ap as previously provided by law.
lit seems clear that my duty is,
inst, TO apply so much of the net in
come derived by the State from the
sale Of liquors under the dispensary
law as may be necessary to equslize
the deficiencies existing in the various
counties in the State after the appli.
cation of the three mill tax and the
poll tax to run the public schools for
the time fixed by law.
Il desire to be advised, first, wheth-
er the counties which have voted out
the dispensaries within their borders
are now entitled to receive any part
of the surplus that may remain Of the
dispensary school fund after these de-
ficiencies above mentioned have been
equalized.
"Second, are such counties entirely
excluded from participating in the dis
tribution now to be made, or are they
to be allowed pro rata share of such
surplus in proportion to the time dur
ing which said profits were earned and
dispensaries were located in such
counties.
There is another class of counties
embracing Greenwood and Marlboro
which have no dispensary and never
have had any. For this reason they
have never voted out dispensary as
specified in the Brice act above refer
red to. Are those counties deprived
of the benefit Of sharing in these sur
plus school funds, or should they con-
tinue to share in the distribution OF
such funds as they have done prior to
this time"
Mr.. Youmans on behalf of the at
torney general expressed the opinion
of the Office in the following language:
Answering your letter of Novem-
ber 18th to the attorney general asking
to be advised in reference to the dis
tribution of the surplus that may re-
main of the dispensary funds after
the deficiencies in the various county
school funds have been equalized, as
provided by the act of 1899, I beg to
say. first:
THAT in my opinion the Briee act
is clear in directing that any county
voting out a dispenssry shall not re-
ceive any part of this surplus. The
statutes providing for the distribution
by the comptroller general refer to
the distribution of these funds as
they come into the State treasury, sub
iect to his order. 1t does not contem-
plate his undertaking to ascertain
when or where there profits were earn
ed. AS soon as the funds reach the
State treasury, subject to his order,
it is his duty to distribute them under
the existing state of facts.
''If. when You undertake to make
this distribution, YOU find that certain
counties have voted out the dlspensar-
les within their borders, you cannot
pay over any part of these surplus
funds to such counties in face OF the
prohibition of the statute that they
Shall not receive any part OF such
surplus. Such counties are entirely
excluded from participating III the
surplus. =
Gas to the counties Of Greenwood
and Marlboro, mentioned by you, they
do not come within the terms OF the
act. counties voting out a dispensary'
and are therefore entitled to share
with the other counties of the State
in the general distribution OF the sur
plus. These are the views OF the at
tomey general" D."
After all there is very little so far
to quarrel over, as but two payments
of profits have been made since Jan
uarv lst. One of these was $6S,5:2-U
on the 10th of January and the other
was $4,000 on the 7th of October.
The total amount of surplus divided
last year was $376,45655. of which