The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1905-08-30
The BRICE LAW
To Be Carried Into the Conrts
and There Tested
AS TO ITS Legality

This Also Involves the Legality Of tb
Recent Election in Uuion County, and
Judge Townsend Has Ordered
the Dispensarles There
to Remain Open.
] ASpecial dispatch to The State from
Union says Judge Townsend Tuesday
Of last week issued the following
order:
'Is is ordered that the defendants
do show cause before me at my cham
bers at Union, 8. c., at II O'Clock or
the 9th day OF September; 1908, why
they should not be perpetually enjoin
ed from closing the dtspsnsaries as
result OF the recent election held or
the 15sh day OF august 1905. That
the said defendants are hereby re-
strained and enjoined from closing
and ceasing to operate said dispensar
les until the further order Of thii
court.
''Let copy OF this order be served
with the summons, complaint and al
fd.vlts upon each OF the defendants
herein. ID. 4. TOWNSEND.
Circuit Judge.
SAT Chambers, Uaion, S. e., 22ad
August, 1905.'
By the Issuing Of the above quoted
order, a delay has been put on the
carrying out OF the wishes Of the vot.
ers OF Union county, as expressed in
the election held Tuesday, August
18th, when they declared by their bal
lots Of "dispensary" 412 and mo dis
pensary" 761 that they wished the
dispensary to 20.
The action was brought by W. Boyd
Evans and Lawson D. Melton, attor-
neys Of Columbia and the complaint
covers II pages of closely typewriter
matter.
No interference was made In tine de.
clarirg OF the election by the election
commissioners, as had been anticipat.
ed; but about O'Clock the attorneys
appeared before Judge Townsend and
secured this temporary Injunction on
complaints made by Carrie Barnett,
q we'll known farmer OF the county,
living near Buffalo.
The defendants are &. NJ. Fincher,
Elzie Kelly and W. D. Wilkins, coun-
| ty board Of control, and G. G. May, j.
G. Howell and J. R. AskeW, county
dispensers. Under this complaint Mr..
Barnett alleges that be Is taxpayer,
resident citizen, and qualified voter OF
Union county; that the defendants
named have under their custody, con-
troll management and direction three
disepnsaries for the sale Of into1icat-
ing liquors in this county. That by
| virtue Of an alleged act Of the general
assembly entitled AN act to amend
section 7 Of an act entitled An act
| to provide fer the election Of the State
board OF control, and to further regu-
late the sale, use, consumption, trans
portation and disposition Of intoxicat-
ing and alcoholic liquors or liquids In
this State, and prescribe further pen
alties for the violation Of the dispen-
sary Law, and to police the same !"
approved March 9Th, 1895, and as
amen1ed by the general assembly OF
South Carolina at its regular session
In January, 1904, and approved Feb
ruarI 25th, 1904. T. ] Betenbaugh,
county supervisor OF Union county,
ordered an election to be held, submit
ting to the qualified voters OF the said
county OF Union the question OF dis
penssry'' or mo dispensary, on the
18th day OF August, 1905. That the
election was held on the day prescrib-
ed, and the county board OF commits
sioners have today declared the result
In favor Of mo dispensary;" that said
county board OF control and dispensers
have threatened and declared their in
tention to close the said dispensaries
and cease to operate the same, claim
ing it is their duty to do 50 as the re-
suit Of the said election.
THE GROUNDS.
This the plaintiff alleges would be
unlawful, unconstitutional and void,
on the following grounds:
(s) That this section 7, as above
cited, is In direct violation Of the con-
stitutional inhibition contained in ar
ticle 8, section "a clause II OF the con-
stitution OF South Carolina, 1905. That
said section Is an attempt on the part
OF the general assembly to pass spec
ial law to limit the operation Of the
dispensary law to certain special local
tiles, and the act being deprived OF Its
character as a general law becomes q
special or local law. That the election
being made under said section Is illeg-
al and void.
(b) That by virtue Of articles s. Sec
tion II Of the constitution Of 1895,
the State cannot delegate to its citi-
zens any special localities determed by
their votes as to whether they shall
be subject to the exercise OF the said
police power regarding the manufac-
ture, sale or prohibition Of liquors or
beverages.
(c) That the act popularity known as
the Brice bill Is unconstitutional, as
the general assembly failed to provide
for the holding OF elections at which
time such questions as "dispensarV"
or mo dispensary" can be submitted
| to the people, and has failed to pre-