The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1907-04-19
THE BEER GASES.
The Governor Hopes Supreme Court
Will Soon be Given Opportunity
to Pass on Sec. SO of Act. d.

raised is judicial one and that he
has no right to make any order re-
quiring the Richland county board
either to grant or revoke a permit
for bottling beer. FIe puts the law
question up to the supreme court,
refusing to take hand in the matter.
"I am satisfied," the decision con-
cludcs, "that the said board did not
act willfully, deliberately and crimi-
nally as alleged in the petition. 1t
is to be hoped that the parties in
trrcs' cd may soon obtain from the su-
prcmc court in proper proceedings
decision showing the proper con-
Struc,ion Of said section 3G.'
The controversy, which has pass
ed through three hearings before the
governor. has been watched with
keen interest. throughout The state,
particularly so in some % counties
similarly situated as Richland.
The petitioners. II. +. Watts and j.
b. Lctton, claimed that section 36 of
the Carcy-Cothran act expressly IL
mltnl beer bot,lin% privileges to those
concerns actually engaged in the busi-
ness ut the time the new law went
into effect, and introduced affidavits
to show that rival, Charles Marcy,
who was granted permit by the
board, had been out Of business since
last July. They asked that the county
board be compelled to carry out this
Interpretation of the law Or be re-
moved for willful violation of the
law.
The opinion in full follows:
State of South Carolina, County Of
Richland.
Ex parte, II. e. Watts and j. Best
Lctton, In re John j. Cain, B. II.
Erylish and George w. Taylor,
constituting the County Dispensary
Board for Richlani County.
Petition.
The petition in this matter, which
was filed in my Office by the petition
crs, seeks in paragraphs seven and
eight of said petition as follows:
"Paragraph Z. Your petitioners
are Informed and believe that they
have no remedy in the courts other
than that provided by the criminal
court, aud they do not feel called up
Oh to institute criminal prosecution,
Sut respectfully appeal to your ex-
ccllencv to protect them in the ell
joyment of their lawful business and
to use The prcgoratives of your high
olhc, to force said county dispensary
boarl to obey the law or remove the
members thereof from Office.
"Paragraph s. Tha, aside from the
personal financial interest which your
petitioners have, they as citizens OF
the state ask that your cNccllncy
see that this law be enforced i'll It's
true mcanin" and intent, and that
those officers be required to conduct
the business Of the dispensary pursu-
ant to law and their oaths of office. -
The return and answers with alfi-
davits and exhibits of the county dis
pensarv board was also filed showing
the action taken by the said board in
granting license or privilege to the
petitioners and also to Charles Marcy.
a return was also filed by Charles
Marcy.
Affidavit wre filed in reply, ar
.umcnt was heard by me from the
counsel representing all the parties.
II appears to me to be a contro-
versy between the beer bottlers, as
to who was legally entitled to be IL
censed under section 3G Of the Car
ey-Cothran act.
This question is one of law that
must be settled by the courts, which
tribunal is the only one whose decree
will be binding upon all parties.
am satisfied that the petitioners
have their remedy to go into court
to ask that the county dispensary
board shall revoke the permit grant.
ed to Charles Marcy.
This being a judicial question,
have no right to make any order re,
quiring said board to either grant o,
revoke such licenses or permits as is
contemplated in section 36 of saiC
| act.
The petitioners also allege that the
county dispensary board acted will
fully, deliberately and criminally il
violating the terms OF said act, ant
in disregard Of the law in granting
said permit or license to Charlie!