The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1907-12-20
FULLY ARGUED.
Some Legal Points Submitted TO.
the Sunreme Gnnrt.

For Its Decision In Reference to the
Formation Of New Counties in
This State. 4!
The case Of A. D. Parler, ct al.
petitioners. VS.. w. Brooks Fogle. ct
al commissioners of election for Or
angeburg County. respondents. was
argued before the State Supreme
Court at Columbia on Thursday on a
petition for an injunction restraining
the commissioners from holding an
election os the formation Of CAL
houn County, as ordered by the Gov
ernor.
Messrs. w. G.. Wolfe, D. o. Her
bert and B. II. Moss. Of tho Orange
burg Bar, appeared for the petitios-
ers, and the board Of election com
missioners were represented by the
Attorney General, who had designa-
ted Messrs Bellinger g. Welch to re-
present him in the case, as Messrs.
Bellinger and Welsh have been the
legal advisers for the new county
advocates.
In his argument for the injunc-
ton, Mr.. w. G. Wolfe took the POSI-
ton that the form, practice and pro-
cedure in this case follows the case
of Segars against PARROT, which
form, practice and procedure re-
ceived the implied sanction Of the
Court by a grant Of the relief desir-
ed in that case. A demurrer was in
terposed in hat case. questioning
the Jurisdiction of the Court in every
particular in which jurisdiction
might me assaulted in this case. but
the demurrer was overruled.
In Lamar against Croft another
new county case, where the same
question Of jurisdiction arose, the
Supreme Court held that the com
plant did not state facts w~arranting
equitable relief and that an action
might be maintained in equity to en-
join the commissioners. Mr.. Wolfe
cited also the case Of Croxton VS..
Truesdell, in which the Supreme
Court enjoined an election to de-
termine the location and establish
ment Of a county ~dispensary. Mr..
Wolfe asked the Court to inspect
the reports Of the surveyors and de
termine whether the surveys were
sufficiently definite; also to consider
whether the Governor had the right
to permit the petitioners to amend
their petition.
Then the third cause OF action In
substance stated as follows:
"The plaintiffs and others residing
within the proposed new county are
registered in their township, but al
voting places without the territor,
OF the proposed county; but undcI
an Act Of the Legislature the de.
PENDANTS have only arranged to oper
voting places within the territory
which deprives petitioners Of the
right to exercise their franchise ir
the proposed election, though the
plaintiffs are qualified, registered
electors. The Constitution provides
that all persons thus qualified have
the right to vote, and Article z eN
pressly declares hat if they reside
within the area of the new count,
they will have the right TO vote. We.
or no, upon their proposition. nc
deprive them Of this right would he
to abridge nj deprive them Of rights
without due process of law and /,
violation OF both the State and Fed
eral Constitutions, where, as in this
case, n polling precinct township
is cut by the proposed boundary iiMe
Of the new county and the voting
place cut without, and the electol
cut within the area Of the proposed
county, there is an irreconcilable con
fict between the Constitution ant
the Act of the General Assembly. Ir
such cases the Act of the Legisla
ture must necessarily fail, and all Of
the Acts of the defendants thereun'
der are necessarily void. If the
Court does not enjoin the defendants
the plaintiffs will be deprived from,
voting and will have no other remedy
or right OF appeal. but would thus
sustain irremediable damage and in
jury"
The fourth cause IF action, said
Mr.. Wolfe, challenges the legality
OF the entire registration system, but
he dwelt on only one point. The
Constitution lays upon the Legisla-
ture the regulation of the right Of
registration, and the Legislature in
1907 passed an Act requiring super
visors Of registration to open their
books in each town or Industrial
community containing 800 or more
inhabitants at least 80 days before
any general or special election. This
Act has been complied with.
In conclusion, Mr.. Wolfe said:
The plaintiffs do not ask that this
election upon the formation Of this
new county be delayed for all time,
but simply that it be stayed until
all the constitutional requirements
In such cases be complied with
In his argument Mr.. Moss devot-
ed himself 20 the conuict between
Section 573 Of the Code and Section
| Of Article z Of the Constitution.
and quoted numerous decisions to
show that the statute in such case is
void and the election should be re-
strained. Col. Herbert also made a
general argument on this line.
In their return to the rule to show
cause, the defendants, through their
attorneys, made a number OF points,
some OF which are as follows:
That the Governor is the sole
judge OF the matters coming bcf,.e