Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1912-07-26
atliseellaneous Rsadiug.
THE WAREHOUSE ACT.
Summary Of Opinion in Which It is
Declared Unconstitutional.

"AhGISOSG SSts
Summary Of Opinion in Which II Il
Declared Unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Gary wrote the deci'
sion Of the supreme court, declaring
null and void the cotton warehouse act
The opinion was concurred in by al
Of the justices sitting in the case. The
title of the act was the state Of Soutf
Carolina, ex relatione. ]. Fraser Lyon
attorney general, petitioner, against j
w. McCown, chairman; T. L. Clink'
scales and John s. Horlbeck, as state
warehouse commission, respondents
The respondents were represented ir
this case by John l. McLaurin Of Ben
nettsville and w. F. Stevenson Of Che
raw.
The opinion by Chief Justice Gary
says:
This Is a petition to the court, In
the exercise Of its original jurisdiction,
in which the petitioner prays, that an
act Of the legislature entitled An act
to create and operate state warehouse
system for storing cotton and other
commodities be declared unconstitu-
tional, and that the respondents be en-
Joined from attempting to enforce Its
provisions.
1.-The return Of the respondents to the
rule to show cause why the prayer OF
the petitioner should not be granted
was formal and merely submitted the
questions involved to the consideration
of the court.
"A copy Of the act will be sent out In
the report Of the case.
Powers of the State.
1.-The circumstances under which the
court should declare a statute uncon-
stitutional, the police power and the
unlimited power Of the legislature. ex-
cept when controlled by constitutional
provision, are discussed at length in
the case Of the State vs. Aiken, AZ 8.
c., 222, and the case renders unneces-
sary the further discussion, in gen.
eral way, Of those questions in this
proceeding.
1.-The grounds upon which the petit
toner contends that the act is uncon-
stitutional are designated by the let
ters a, b. C, d, e, (, g and h and will
be considered in regular order.
"(a) 1t appropriates public revenue
for private purposes and provides that
the state, through her public officers
engage in an enterprise in no way in
cident or relating to any governmental
function or matter, the warehouse sys-
tenn provided for therein, being solely
for the benefit Of private individuals
and violative Of section 2, article Of
the constitution.
The ultimate solution Of this prop
osition depends upon the question
whether the said act can be construed
as a police regulation.
1.-The title of act shows that its OBJ
ject was to create and operate state
warehouse system for storing cotton
and other commodities.
TT will be observed it was not the
intention of the statute that the state
should become the owner Of the cotton
or other commodities, deposited in the
warehouses, nor that the state should
operate the warehouses for the pur-
pose Of profit.
Object of the Act.
1.-The object of the act may be stated
in a few words The cotton growers In
this state and the merchants, to whom
a large portion Of the staple Ia deliver
ed in payment Of Indebtedness for sup
plies consumed In its production, are,
as a rule. unable to hold 1t, but for a
short time. after the crop Is gathered
and a force sale means a sacrifice OF
profits to them. Knowing this fact
certain speoulators, by combination of
capital and manipulation Of the money
market, are able for q short time by
reducing the circulating volume of
money to depress the cotton market
and fix an unreasonably low price for
the cotton crop, They would not, how
ever, be able to control the price. but
for g. short time and the object Of the
statute was to give protection to the
public during this period from an en-
forced sale of the cotton crop. We deem
it unnecessary to discuss at any length
the manner In which this unreasonable
depression In price affects not only the
cotton grower, but the people general
ly, as we'll as every department Of the
government and every governmental
agency in the state. In passing this
statute, the state was clearly within
the exercise Of its police power. which
in it's last analysis simply means the
states right of self defense.
1.-The case Of Barfield vs. Mercantile
company and the cases therein cited
tend to show that the act in question
was for a public and not a private
purpose,
"(b) 1t provides that the state shall
engage In q private business, not Incl
dental or necessary to the exercise of
the police power.
What has just been said disposes
of this ground.
"(c) 1t provides for an issue OF
bonds, and an Increase OF the public
debt, without first submitting the ques-
tion as to the creation Of such new
debt to the qualified electors Of this
state at a general election, in viola
ton of section 2, article 10, Of the
constitution.
Debt of tho State.
Section 2. article 10. of the constitu-
ton:
Ito the end that the public debt OF
South Carolina, may not hereafter be
increased, without the due considera-
tion and free consent Of the people OF
the state, the general assembly Is here
by forbidden to create any public debt
or obligation, either by the loan Of the
credit Of the state, by guaranty, in
dorsement or. otherwise, except for the
ordinary and current business Of tie
4f.1