The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-05-27
STATE COMMANDS;
COURT F0RBIDS
Argument Begun in Famous Dis
pensary Case Yesterday, Chief
Justice Fuller Presiding.
Lawyers Will Finish To-
Day, and Early De-
cision Expected.
vERnuL1NG motions to dismiss

| II and postpone the sSOutH Sdi "
lima dispensary cases, the
~ United States Circuit Court OF
Appeals. Chief Justice Fuller
presiding. yesterday afternoon heard
one attorney for each side. and ad-
journed until 10 O'Clock this morning,
when argument will be resumed and
concluded.
The Chief Justice, who was expected
from Washington at 10 A. n, did not
arrive until nearly P. NJ, and he
went Immediately upon the bench, Dis
trict Judges Waddill, of this city, and
Boyd, Of North Carolina, sitting with
him. Although he lost no time in
directing the lawyers to proceed. It
was over an hour before the merits
of the cases were touched upon. the
lawyers in arguing first the motion
to dismiss the appeal and then to post
pone the hearing.
Ground for Notions.
The fight for both was led by Mr..
A. S. Barnard, OF Asheville. N. G. who
appeared as associate counsel for the
appellees, upon whose petition Judge
Pritchard recently appointed receivers
to take charge OF the affairs OF the
dispensary.
The motion to dismiss the appeal was
based upon the allegation that 1t was
not filed with the clerk of the appel
late court within the return day of the
citation. as is provided by law. Mr..
Earnard stated that the record was
presented on April 9th. and that April
Goth was the last day. He referred to
many authorities.
Mr.. W. +. Stevenson. of counsel for
the State. opposed the motion. He
10 cbn1 t,o
where Sunday was the last day, as was
the case here. 1t should not be included
in the calculation.
Both the lawyers spoke several times.
and when Mr.. Barnard saw that his
point was not appealing very strongly
to the presiding Justice, he practically
abandoned the attempt. and. turning
in another direction, argued earnestly
for a postponement, on the ground
that he had not had sufficient time to
prepare for the hearing. and that some
of the briefs of opposing counsel had
not been seen by him until yesterday.
Were Not United.
On this latter point. counsel for the
appe!lees were not united. Mr.. T.. NJ.
Mordecai strongly favoring an imme-
diate hearing. Mr. Stevenson also OPP
posed this motion on behalf of the
Sldle, duu 4.3V a1., dlNeIS Tie
chief justice had secured some informa-
ton concerning the status of the dis
pensary affairs. he told. counsel to pro-
ceed with the argument.
"Is this money tied up so that It
cannot be disbursed?" asked the court
Yes, sir" replied Mr.. Rountree. OF
counsel for the State. Nearly $780,
600 is tied up. and 100000 OF it be-
longs to the State school fund
1T is our money" replied Mr. Barn
ard. "and Just how the State of South
Carolina can be injured by holding
our money in bank and drawing
per cent. interest on it, cannot quite
understand"
Argument Begins.
Mr.. Rountree opened for the State,
and made strong legal argument in
favor Of the appeal from Judge Pritch-
ards decision. He recited brief his
tory of the dispensary system in South
Carolina, and declared that at first it
had given great satisfaction. and that
the people thought 1t had solved the
liquor problem. or, at least, minimized
the EVIL growing out of the traffic in
whiskcy.
But suddenly there were rumors
of fraud and corruption he declared,
''and these rumors were discovered
later to be we'll founded. When a
man gets to putting into his pockets
the difference between the cost of pure
whiskey and connections called whis-
key, he gets bolder and bolder with
every act"
Continuing, Mr.. Rountree told Of the
investigation and of the determination
of the state by legislative act to close
out and retire from the business. The
ho ho NJ
only the State was interested in it.
The parties against whom this pro-
ceedins was brought We're but individ-
uals In the employ of the State, and
were not proper defendants.
Grounds OF Challenge.
"rhc commission challenges the
arate and distinct grounds" hc con-
tinued,
a. The suit is, in effect, suit
agninst the State.
..2. The State is an Indispensable
party.
"s. That 1t Is an encroa chime mt by he
Judicial department upon the functions
Of the Legislative department., absolute
In Its independence of the former.
"'rhe c0mmisAion challenges also the
exercise of jurIatliction upon two sep-
nratc aud distinct grounds,
~. The bills, slnEly or collectively,
are without equity on their merits.
':. There was absolutely no proof
before the court to warrant this order.
"rhe plaintiffs, on tile other hand,
undertake. to sustain the turisdictioI,
upon the theory Of "a trust fund and
an irrepealable contract,' and the ex-
ercise of iurisdiction, on the grounds,
~. There is equity In tile bills.
tc. The verified hills nnd Mr. Lac.
ter's afldnvlts constituted sufficient
proof to warrant the order"
Allegiance to state.
Proceeding later on another point,
Mr.. Rountree said
.'i'he court. owe allegiance to tie
stats, Nnd must yield Obcdience to the