The Sentinel=record., 1914-01-15

beeu ONeTTuleu, tHe prom sue SeeHl- ed about out of material on which to act. It was fifteen minutes of i2 o'clock and Judge Sumpter asked the county court to adjourn until the afternoon session.
 When the crowd scattered. the dS- cussion of the action of the court in overruling the demurrer, was accept ed as sort Of hint that some time during the afternoon the matter would be settled and the licenses granted. There was much optimism in the ranks of those favoring license.
 The afternoon session, however, furnished the surprise of the proceed ing when with the crowd gathered in county court to witness further pro. ceedings, Judge Sumpter was in cir cult court before Judge Gotham with an unexpected proceeding that would if sustained estop the whole of the authority of the county court, at feast, under the present petitions.
 Another surprise was sprung at the afternoon session in circuit court, when two new attorneys were intro duced in the case for the petitioners. Attorneys Davies and Davies had been representing the petitioners, but in circuit court Attorney l.. E. Saw yer and Attorney George P. Whit tington appeared as attorneys with Davies and Davies in that proceed ing, and all made arguments in the matter of having the writ set aside
 The opening speech before the cir cult court was made by Attorney Sawyer, who was member of the last legislative session which passed the Going law, and he made a most vigorous and determined and convinc- ing speech against the constitutional ity of the act. He said that it was competent for any inferior court to pass on the constitutionality of an act, and that this one undoubtedly was in violation of the bills of rights and the state and national constitu- tion, and, therefore, under his opin- ion. should be thrown out as void legislation.
 In this connection counsel for the unconstitutional it was the more req son why the circuit court should pre- vent by writ of prohibition the coun- ty court from accepting it as a good and valid law.
 Attorneys Davies and Davies, and Sawyer and Wilmington made the ar guments against the writ, and Attor- 'Beys T4sGDnnsii andssSaInpter arg1ieS for the writ, each in the order nam ed The opening was by Sawyer and the closing by Wilmington.
 Those oppdsing the writ argred that it should not be granted except tions, that it was interference with another court, that the county court had original and exclusive jurisdic- ton, and that it was not within the province of the circuit court :c step in unless it could be shown that great and lasting injustice or wrong was being done, or that the inferior court was encroaching upon tire au- thority of a higher court.
 Those defending the writ assumed That it had been shown that if the county court proceeded under the pc titions, and the petitions were not properly in court, and, therefore, the proceedings illegal, it was evident that a great injustice would be done, and that there was not sufficient remedy in appeal, because a heavy bond would have to be filed, and that it was apparent that the time to set tie the question set up in the demur- Ter to the petitions was before they were acted on, rather than after they were ruled out and saloon license granted.
 There was great number of all- thorities presented to Judge Gotham on both sides of the question, and he made careful notes of these, indi- eating that he would spend most of the night in a careful survey of the legal situation.
 The first matter brough. before the attention of the court was petition by c. M Wade, a colored citizen, at tacking the constitutionality of the Going law under which the petitions were filed, and setting forth that as negro citizens were deprived of sign ing or acting, the act under the bill of rights and constitution was not proper. This action differed in the action filed by colored citizens in Pine Bluff, in that here it was a remon- strance to the recognition of the Go ing law, while in Pine Bluff it was in form of an injunction against the act,
 Judge Mooney permitted hearing on the issue, and then ruled that his court would not take jurisdiction of the subject matter of the constitu- tionality of the Going act. He referr- ed the remonstrance to a higher court He did not decide that the re- monstrance was denied, but had the clerk of the court file it, with no rul-