The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1907-04-26
AURENs CASE DECIDED.
|ensary S9ands-Supreme Court
Decides Laurens Dispensary
Election Case.

and Courier. =.
5ii1Mmbia, April 22.-The Supreme
Gloa4today filed its decision in the
dispcnsary election ease, the
kegisipn being written by Chief JUS
ope, confirming the decree Of
& l1de Hydrick, before whom the case
asaheard in Columbia. The case is
atAleled Henry Wright versus J. T..
aS4annt ct al, as State board of can-
As8ers, but the real issue was be-
tWAen the 'dispensary and anti-dis-
pAlsary factions Of Laurens County,
H question being the result of the
eleetion held January a year ago I'M
teE the Brice law upon dispcnsary
dhno dispensary.
%stNSsW right, who is a citizen and tax
payer of Laurens, was the party in
Whose name the suit was brought. It
will be recalled that the election un-
deN the Brice law resulted in q ma
JoIity against the dispensary Of DC
votes on the face Of the returns, but
the#county board of election commits
M eMsSioaers declared the election, null and
S5tyojdapn account of certain alleged ir-
Sgregillarities. An appeal was taken to
SthState board Of canvassers and
thatSboard reversed the county board,
deSlaring that while there were GER
tain irregularities there was no fraud
and nothing serious enough upon
which to vitiate the election. The
State board held that it was not nee
essary to require the voter to pro-
nce his registration certificate, as
tas claimed by the contestants.
A petition for a writ of certiorari
as then brought before Judge Hy-
0s5ek, holding Court in Columbia, and
his decision he held that the coun-
w ahoard was correct and the State
Ard incorrect. The principal point
l10n which he decided the case was
SStqhiaettit is necessary for an elector to
produce his registration, certificate,
as&Well as his tax receipt in order to
vote but both sides appealed from
hisSdecision to the Supreme Court.
Grief Justice Pope now gives opin-
Ion sustaining Judge Hyrdick and the
entire Court concurs in the rsult, but
Associate Justice Woods files a sep
iarate opinion in which he states that
while it is necessary under the consti-
tuition for voter to produce his tax
receipt, it is not necessary to produce
MISREPRESENTATION certificate.
AThe Constitution provides in Arti-
'Sla@2, Section 4, Paragraph C, that
fhe managers Of election shall re-
Attire the voter to produce his tax re-
VEeipts, and in Paragraph +, that reg
listration certificates shall be provid-
1sd8 8for, but does not stipulate that
RtheyS shall be produced in order to
V]Rote. The General Assembly is,
1hoWsver, given authority to regulate
Me manner of holding elections, and
1896 the Legislature did pass an
HS%now Section 213, Of the Civil
Ode, requiring managers to require
ectors to produce registration ccr-
! .IHHicates before being allowed to vote.
MWas claimed that this Act is be-
ydhd the province Of the General AS
sembly, in that it adds to the re-
A1uirements Of the Constitution, but
Supreme Court does not take
hat view of the matter.
Mt was claimed in this ease that at
theSprecincts known as Laurcns, No.
1IClinton, No. !, and Princeton vot
ers$ were allowed to east their ballots
without being required to produce
, their registration certificates or their
I tax receipts, and there seems to be
Sno doubt Of the fact that there were
Ayarious irregularities in the conduct
bf the election, but no fraud was al
eyed However it is not likely that
my election in this state is ever con-
- lctcd in strict accordance with the
Rv, because the men who act as
Anagers do not, as a rule, know
details of the statutes.