The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1909-08-11

M. 80 Corso WIN oOsHAo O0tou Inen
Reasons for Alleging the Act or
dsring tise IAsuor Elections OF An
gUst ~ Unconstitutional.
Charleston. July e.--Messrs. w. A
Holman and John =. Grace. repre-,
ssntins Logan 4 Grace, have return.
ID front Lancaster. whore they ap.
peared before Chief Justice Jones OF
The South Carolina Supreme Court
askins Tor . restraining order pre-.
vsheing the election commissioners OF
this county from holding the liquor
slectsen set for August II. So far a.
hnown. Chief Justice Jones has taken
10 aceioH ~ yet In the matter. havins
eAkea t>sc motion under advisement,
IT, setcrnsys. when asked a. to who
wss hack of the effort to prevent the
slseslss. stated that they represented
Theaas X. Jsi,ioo. the petitioner.
When they were requested to prepare
. seatssee~t sf the grounds upon which
their mc<aoa b bassd. they at hrst
dessined to DO % except to cay that
'thsy ha1 canvasssd the situation thor
cughly before dstsrminins upon ac-
ton. and we're convinced. and are
now move Jsmphaticaily convinced,
that they stood upon solid ground;
but later IN the day they agreed to 60
anto the matter more fully and gave
out the Statements which follows:
= AT ns iast session. the iegidiaturs
pssssd biil sntitied. .AA Act to pro-
nibit the aaanufacturs. sale. barter.
Szchanse. giving away to induce
-sraae. ths furnishins at public places
q otherwise disposins pf alcohol.
sDirisucus. vinous or malt liquors or
bsverascA o. other liquors or bevsr-
asss b. Whatsoever name carled.
whsch 70 drunk to excess win produce
,lstozicstion, szesp< for sale Of alco-
Aoa - certain cases upon certain con-
ditions. and except the sale Of wines
Cor sacrameatai purposes. and to pro-
vide penalties for the violation there
o. aNe W fN
'Ths psxin subtsct Of the title n
'preassatlon.' and the subject 'prohi-
bDt1su' ls Clearly expressed in the title.
TAs hrst thirteen sections Of the hin
ere painiy prohibition sections. and
the fourteenth section was originally
merely 10 express the time when the
b&il became sfRective. But there was
tackled ON to the bill IN Sections II.
Is and i6 matters not oAly not neces-
pary nor incidental to the subject Of
the bill. but provisions absolutely de-
structive Of the subject Of prohibi-
tion. These provisions are that In
certain ccunties there shall bs an
elsotion held on August II. at which
election the subject OF prohibition
may be entirely repudiatsd and the
sale Of liquor approved. 1t IL mani.
fest. Therefore. that there 70 a total
cleavage between the original bill and
these inconsistent provisions. because
Prohibition and the sale of liquor are
irrsconetlsbie.
THE constitution provides in Sec
don ~, srticie 3. as follows:
ANY Act or resolution having the
force Of iaw shall relate to but one
subject and that shall be expressed
In the title
The decisions on this question
hold that while al Act of the leEis.
iature will not be lightly set aside
yet this clause OF the constitution was
introduced to stop abuses of isgisla.
tion commonly designated under ths
Germ lcs-rolling.' and that when tn.
title of an Act is inconsistent with
any portion of the Act itself. sucf
portion Is unconstitutional. and viii
Dc set aside. OF course. the case
distinguish between portions of ar
fct which help out and give efficac,
I to the main purpose OF the Act
though such portions are not precise
y referred to In the title. and sucl
cases where the unexpressed portion
OF the Act is entirely foreign to. de
stroctive of and inconsistent with tn,
title.
The former line of cases is thu
referred TO In San Antonio vs. Me
hafy, ss Y. S.. p s16, as follows:
"when an Act OF the Legislature
expfsssed In It's title the object of tn
Act. the title embraces and expresse
any lawful means to achieve the OBJ
ject, thus fulfilling the constitutions