The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1915-08-12
WILL ANNUL REFERENDUM?
BEGUN TO PRE-
VENT PROHIBITION ELECTION.
Watts Refuses Injunction, but Re
fers Matter to South Carolina
Justices.

Justices.
Columbia, August IF proceed
ings begun in the supreme court Of
this State to prevent the prohibition
referendum election on September
IA fails an appeal to the supreme
court of the United States may knock
out the referendum. An application
was made at Laurens yesterday by
Cole L. Blease, former governor Of
South Carolina, and Frank G. Thonhp-
kins, Of Columbia, attorneys repre-
senting John Henry Chappell, tax
payer of Newberry, asking for an in
junction preventing the referendum.
Associate Justice Watts, before whom
the application was made, refused
to sign an Injunction, but referred
the matter to the whole supreme
court and set August 20 in Columbia
for that body to hear the question
and to pass on the matter.
Significance is attached to that Sec
ton in the petition asking for the
Injunction in that it is alleged that
the referendum is in violation of the
constitution of the State and Of the
United States. Observers see in the
federal question an opening to take
the case to the United States su-
preme court should the anti-prohi-
bitionists lose out in the State courts.
This could be done either by getting
a writ of error from the chief justice
of the State supreme court or by ap-
plying to a United States supreme
| court justice for writ of error and
temporary injunction preventing
the referendum, pending the hearing
| of the appeal. The nearness OF the
referendum would prevent the su-
preme court of the United States from
hearing the matter until after the
date for the election would have
passed, and the anti-prohibitionists
would have won their point even If
the highest tribunal would later de-
! eide that the referendum was regu-
lar. If the date for the election is
passed it would be victory for the
ants and the whole question would
be postponed until the next meet
ing of the legislature.
Contention of Petitioner.
The contention Of the petitioner
| is that it is power granted the gen.
eral assembly by the constitutions of
the United States and of the State to
say whether or not the State shall
have prohibition or what form of reg
ulation Of the liquor traffic shall pre-
vail, and that this power cannot be
passed or delegated to the people
through a referendum election. They
also point out that the referendum act
provides for the winding up Of the
! dispensaries in case prohibition wins,
and this they declare is legislating
on a contingency which is invalid
and unconstitutional.
The general public thought the pro-
hibitionists were certain Of victory
and that the antis were not even go
ing to make a fight, and on every
hand one could hear that the result
was foregone conclusion. The first
move against prohibition came yes
terday, when attorneys representing
Mr.. Chappell, taxpayer of Newberry
county, applied to Associate Justice
Watts for an injunction preventing
the election on the ground that the
act passed by the legislature provid-
ing for the referendum on Septem-
Der IA is unconstitutional and inval-
id. The action was directed against
Secretary of State R. NJ. McCown,
State Treasurer S. T. Carter, Comp
troller General Carlton w. Sawyer
and C. T. Graydon, Zeb Hope. and
]. F. Howell, State commissioners
of election for Richland county. JUS
tice Watts refused to grant an in
junction, but referred the whole
question to the supreme court, which
meets in Columbia on August 20.
Personally a Prohibitionist.
Mr.. Chappell says in his petition
that he is a personal prohibitionist,
and expects to vote for Statewide
prohibition in the referendum elec-
ton, but that he thinks it is uncon-
stitutional, and the election would be
invalid, and it would, therefore in
volve an unnecessary expense to the
taxpayers, reciting that S35,SO0 IS
provided for meeting the expenses of
the referendum. \
After reciting the referendum act,
in which provision is made for wind
ing up the dispensaries in case pro-
hibition carries, the petitioner says:
THE aforesaid provisions and Sec