The Union times. [volume] (Union, S.C.) 1894-1918, 1905-09-08

Spi ASnoh Aioih llc petlIlOn rs were
other names under similar condi-
tions. The allegations of fraud and
misconduct in the election in that
there were some allowed to vote
who had no right to vote and some
denied the right to vote who were
qualified, were unsupported by any
afhdavits or oral testimony, there
fore the defense had nothing to re-
ply on that charge. After Mr..
Townsend had finished reading the
return and attached affidavits, J.
Gordon Hughes, Esq, read the re-
turns OF the county board of control
and county dispensers. This re-
turn or answer admitted every ma
tcrial allegation in the complaint.
and attacked the constitutionalitv
OF the Brice bill where said bill de-
prived any county in the State in
which there was no dispensary of
her proportionatc share OF the money
arising from the profits of the sale
OF whiskey, to make up the dcfici-
ency, where less than three dollars
per capita of the school children in
each district was raised by the con-
stitutional school tax of 8 mills.
This concluded the reading of the
papers and both sides having so an
nounced the court called for argu
mcnts.
Mr.. Melton then in the form of
a preliminary motion asked the
court to discontinue this hearing
and to appoint n referee to take tes-
timony upon all the facts connected
with the case, in support of the al
legations of the complaint, saying
that it was not possible for the plain
tiff to get all the facts in the form
OF affidavits, that the affidavits now
before the court were not sufficient
9sf5h T6id e6ad Be- fgadaan and eed dc fs
Pickens case, in which Chief Justice
Pope declined to hear the case upon
the affidavits and had appointed
referee to take testimony. Judge
Townsend declined at this stage of
the proceedings to pass upon the
motion. but decided to hear the
arguments upon the returns then
before the court in obedience to his
rule to show cause
Mr.. Wilson asked Mr.. Melton for
the legal points and authorities upon
which he expected to rely. Mr..
Melton said he would urge at this
time the consideration of the Court
only one ground of unconstitution-
ality that was the time Of holding
the election, quoting the provisions
of the constitution and the statute
fixing the day and date of holding
elections, that the law under which
the supervisor had ordered the cleo
ton upon the question of dispcnsary
or no dispensary fixed no day for
holding elections. That the super
visor under the act of the general
assembly which did fix day, had
no right to fix any other day, that
therefore the election was null and
void, as it was held in violation of
the constitution and the general
election law. That it was techni-
cal violation even though the man
ncr of holding and declaring the
result was in conformance with the
general election law. Mr.. Melton
urged and argued this point with
great vigor and earnestness, he was
however more eager to have the
whole matter referred to referee.
Mr.. Sawyer then made an argument
upon the principle facts established
and proved beyond doubt by the
defendants Betenbaugh, Sanders
and Howe. He also quoted some
law in support of his position upon
the election being legal. He made
a matchlcss argument in support of
the facts of the law, and carrying
out the wishes Of the people az e3-
prqssca hg Them in their vote on
the.15th Of August, 1905. He was
followed by Mr.. Stanyarne Wilson
J who began by saying that Mr.. Saw
yer had so thoroughly covered the
!, ground of their defense, had left
him but little margin. However,
, Mr.. Wilson seemed to find plenty
. upon which to elaborate. He re.
viewed the testimony closely, and
, showed by the undisputcd facts,
that the petition asking for an elcc,
/ ton, the conduct and conformance
, to the law in holding the election
had been fully carried out in every
, particular. In reply to the allega.
, tions of technical or irrcgularity
in elections he quoted from the En-
cyclopedia of law in which cases
. were cited where it had been re.