The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1905-09-01

AS To- ITS LEGALITY.
This Also Involves the Legality Of the
Recent Election In Union County, and
Judge Townsend Has Ordered
the Dlspensarles There
TO Remain Open.
A Especial dispatch to The State from
Union sayb Judge Townsend Tuesday
Of last week issued the following
order:
Us 10 ordered that the defendants
do show sAuse before nae at my cham
bers ut Union, s. O., ut II O'Clock on
the 9th day OF September, 1905, why
they.ahon'd not be perpetually enj Din.
ed from closing the dispensaries as
result Of ithe recent election hold on
the 1bhhYday Of August 1905. That
the said5 defendants are hereby re-
strained and enjoined from closing
and ceasipg to operate said dispensar-
les untilstthe further order Of this
court.
Let al copy Of this order be served
with the,summons, complaint and af.
L., 81, -. H.
herein. I'D. A. TOWNSEND.
Circuit Judge.
"At Chambers, Union, s. o., 22nd
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 'fdispensary" 412 and "no dis
pensaryn 76l 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 l pages Of closely typewritten
matter.
claring 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
a complaints made by Carrie Barnett,
q we'll known farmer OF the county,
living near Buffalo.
1 THE defenss ats are r. M. Fincher,
IL. .., ~D.s Wilkins, enun :,
ty board f control, and G.. q. May, J.
G.. Howell and j. r.. Askew, county
dispensers. Under this complaint Mr..
Barnett alleges that he Is taxpayer.
resident ciGizen, and qualified voter of
Union county; that the defendants
named have under their custody, con.
troll management and direction three
disepusaries for the sale Of intoxicat.
Ing liquors in this county. That by
virtue of an alleged act Of the general
assembly entitled "An act to amend
section Of an act entitled AN act
to provide for 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, 1896, and as
amended by the general asse nbly Of
South Carolina at its regular session
In January, 1904, and approved Feb.
ruary 25th, 1904. Il. Betenbaugh,
county supervisor of Union county,
ordered all election to be held, submit
ting to the qualified voters of tho said
county of Union the question of dis.
pensary" or mo dispensary," on the
10Th 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 1t is their duty to do so as the re.
suit Of the said election.
THE GROUNDS.
This the plaintiff alleges would bo
unlawful, unconstitutional and void
on the following grounds:
(N That this section 7, as above
citcd, is In direct violation Of the con-
stitutional inhibition contained In ar
| ticle 8, section 34 clause IL OF the con-
situation 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 It's
| character as 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 8, sec.
tion IL Of the constitution of 1895,
the State cannot delegate to Its citi.
zsns any special localities determed by
their votes as to whether they shall
be subject to the exercise Of tho said
polica power regarding the manufac.
ture, sale or prohibition Of liquors or
beverages.
| (c) That the aot popularity known as
the Brlcc bill Is unconstitutional, as
the general assembly failed TO provide
for the holding OF elections at which
time such questlons as "dispensary"
or mo dlspensary" can be submitted
to the people, and has failed to pre-
scribe the manner in which such cleo.
tion shall be held and results ascer-
tanned
(d) That under the general election
law the election should be held the first
pnaodau W follp1Inn tho n rot Mo,,Jo,, =,