The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1912-12-28

|
think it conclusive.
{ While the intention of the trainers
| OF the constitution is somewhat OBJ
scured by want Of clearness in ex-
preston, and, perhaps, also, from
oversight Of and consequent failure
to pro lie for the contingency pre-
| send THIS case, yet, when we cen
strue together the various provisions
of the constitution upon this subject,
| the conclusion can not be resisted
that the trainers of the constitution
used the words "old" and new" in
the sections above quoted, with refer
ence to the limits of area, popula-
ton and wealth Of counties, relative
to the time when they were speaking
AT that time, and as to those mat
ters, they contemplated only the then
existing counties and counties there
after to be created-the one class
they denominated old the other
new. Hence, in section 3, we find
them saying. mo new county here
after formed" etc, showing that they
used the words, new county" and
county hereafter formed" synonym
ously To say that no new county
shall contain less than 400 square
miles and to prohibit the reduction
| Of it's area below 500 square miles
Is such an incongruity Of thought
and expression as to forbid the adop-
ton Of the application Of section
to counties which may contain less
than 500 square miles While it is
true that new county may contain
| over 500 square miles, still, when
| sections and are read together,
the conclusion is inevitable that Sec
ton was not intended to apply to
those counties whose minimum area
was fixed at 400 square miles.
The second proviso to section Z
that, in altering county lines 1.-The
change shall not reduce the county
from which the territory is taken be-
low the limits prescribed in sections
3. and Of this article seems to
be conclusive Of the question. II the
construction contended for by petit
tioners is correct, the inclusion of the
| limitations contained in section 8 in
the provisO to section was useless,
because, in that event, there is moth
ing to which the limitations Of Sec
ton can apply. and the applica-
ton of the limitations Of section
| and alone would have better ex-
| pressed the intention Of the lawmak-
| ers. But we find the limitations of
section Incorporated in the proviso
| and We must conclude that they were
| intended to have some force and ef-
feet and apply to something. Fur
| thermore, If the construction contend
| ed for by the petitioners is sound, the
word "old" in sections and is
| useless. But we find it there, and
the rules of construction require us
to give it some meaning, if possible;
| and we must presume that, without
1t, these sections would not have eX-
| pressed the intention of the lawmak-
ers. The express incorporation Of
the limitation of section 3. a section
| mich previously related to the form
! alton Of new counties in the second
proviso of section and making il
| applicable to the alteration Of all
county lines, Notwithstanding the use
! of the word old IN that section, is
| significant as showing at least the
opinion of the trainers Of the consti-
| tuition that section which referred
only to "old counties" would not ap-
ply to the alteration of any county
line, unless made to do so by express
| reference, which tends to show hat
| they did not think Of counties there
after to be formed as "old counties"
1t follows that the inhibitions OF
| section do not apply to Lee county,
as that is not an "old county" within
the meaning Of the constitution with
! respect to the limitations therein
| mentioned, and that the inhibitions
Of sections and will not be vio-
lated by the proposed alteration Of
the county line.
The petition is therefore dismissed
Eugene B. Gary, c. j., cOncurs and
files separate opinion. c.. A. Woods,
A. j., files separate concurring opin-
ion. r. c. Watts. A. j., concurs in
| the opinion Of Justice Woods
In his cOncurring opinion Chief JUS