Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1906-01-16
sRIcE LAW CONSTITUTIONAL.
Supreme Court Renders Sweeping De-
cision on Important Subject.

cision on Important Subject.
News and Courier:
The supreme court last Saturday
night unanimously decided that the
Brice Act is constitutional. 1t dis
solved all the temporary injunctions.
The decision was even more sweep
ing and more hurtful to the dispen-
sary than the opponents Of the dis
pensary hoped for. 1t says that the
only thing in the Brice Act that is
unconstitutional is the penalty clause
put in by the dispensary advocates,
which sought to penalize the coun-
ties which voted out the dispensary
of their share of the dispensary prof
it's for schools. The court, whether
intentional or not, has heartily re-
sponded to the voice of the people.
The anti-dispensary advocates
could not have obtained a more ia
vorable decision to those opposed to
the state dispensary system. The
decision goes so far as to say that
all counties are entitled to their
share of the surplus from counties
maintaining the dispensaries. The
following is the full text of the de-
cision, for which there has been such
great anxiety and almost impatience:
The state of South Carolina, in the
supreme court, November term,
1905.
w. w. Murphy, petitioner against
B. C. Landrum ct al, respondents.
Louis B. Cox, petitioner, against
James Hodges ct al, respondents.
Joseph. w. Coward, petitioner,
against ]. H. Blackwell ct al, re-
John A. Weir, petitioner, against
F. P. Walker ct al, respondents.
Robert E. Ligon. petitioner,
against F. H. Burris ct al, respond
ents. -.
Pickens County, petitioner against
A. w. Jones, as comptroller general,
respondent.
Oconee County, petitioner, against
A. w. Jones. comptroller general
respondent.
Adam L. Aull, petitioner, against
A. w. Jones, as comptroller general,
respondent.
On each of these cases brought in
the original jurisdiction of this court
the question is raised as to the con-
stitutionality of the Act commonly
known as the Brice Act approved
February %, 1904, amending section
Z Of the general dispensary law, ap-
proved March 6, 1895.
After careful consideration this
court is of the opinion that said Act
is not unconstitutional on any Of the
grounds alleged, except in so far as
said "Brice Act declares that ANY
county voting out a dispensary shall
not thereafter receive any part OF
the surplus that may remain of the
dispensary school funds after the de-
ficiencies in the various county school
b10Saed f@oSs have bye Gsen Whe WaSe the ep eour
considers this provision unconsti-
tutional, the court is Of the opin-
ion that it is separate from the
remainder of the Act, and that said
Act stands as constitutional with this
provision treated as stricken out.
This conclusion renders it necess-
ary to set aside the temporary in
junction granted in the first five
above entitled cases restraining the
closing of the dispensaries therein
mentioned, and also that the tempo
rary injunction granted in the re-
manning three above cases, entitled
restraining the comptroller general
from drawing MS oITclal warrant lor
the several sums arising from the
surplus of the dispensary fund as
therein mentioned, be dissolved and
the comptroller general left free to
disburse the said fund as it would
have been disbursed before the en-
actment of the said Brice Act, and
it is so adjudged.
The reason for these conclusions
will be stated in an opinion hereafter
to be filed.
Y. ]. Pope, chief justice; Eugene
B. Gary, associate justice; c. A.
Woods, associate justice.
This order will at once close the
dispensaries in Greenville, Spartan
burg, Anderson and other counties
where they have been kept open by
temporary orders. The decision be-
came generally known in the house
Friday night and the court was freely
congratulated and commended.