The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1915-08-11
EFFORT TO PREVENT
Vote ON PROHIBITION
Injunction Proceedings Be-
fore Justice Watts
DECISION DEFERRED
FULL COURT

Enter Suit for "PrOhibition" Client
to EntOin State Officers and Rich
land County Managers From Furth.
err Action.
Columbia, Aug. 7.-Alleging that the
act Of the last general assembly pro-
viding for an election Septembar II
on the question Of prohibition is un-
constitutional, attorneys yesterday
filed a petition with r. C. Watts, as
sociate Justice, at Laurens, asking that
a temporary Injunction be issued
The action was brought by John
Henry Chappell. a citizen Of Newbcrry
county, against r. NJ McCown, secre-
tary Of state OF South Carolina: S. 4.
Carter, State treasurer of South Car
olina; G. w. Sawyer, comptroller gen.
eral of South Carolina, and C. r.
Graydon, Zeb Hope and J. t. Howell,
commissioners Of election OF Rich
land county.
After reading the petition Associate
Justice Watts refused to grant The in
junction, but issued the following or
der:
1T is ordered that The respondents g
show cause before supreme court on
August 20, at 10 o'clock n. I'm, 1919
why an order should not Issue herein.
restraining them from the acts aud
things complained of in Tho said peti-
ton"
Frank G. Tompliins and c. L. Bicasc
of Columbia arc the attorneys Tor the
petitioner They went to Lanrcns yes
terday morning 10 secure the order.
If proceedings begun in the Su-
nreme Court of this State to prevent
the prohibition referendum c'-ctior on
September IA fails an appeal TO the
Supreme Court OF the United States
may knock out the referendum. An
application was made at Lanrcns yes
terday by Cole l.. BleaSc, former Gov
ernor of South Carolina, and Frank G.
Tompkins, of Columbia, attorney; rep
resentng John Harry Chappell, n tax
payer Of Newberry, asking for an iii
j"rction preventing the Referendum
Associate Justice Watts, before whom
the application was made, refused to
sign an Injunction, but reforrai the
matter to the whole. Supreme Court
and set August 20 In Columbia Tor
that body to hear the question and to
pass on the matter.
Significance Is attached to that sec
tiOo IN tho g. ~ ;,,
junction in that it is alleged the refer.
cndum is in violation both Of the Con-
stitution Of the State and of the
United States. Observers see in the
Federal question an opening to take
the case. to the United States Supreme
Court should the i-prohibtionist
lose out in the State Courts. This
could be done either by getting q writ
State Supreme Court or by applying to
a United States Supreme Court JUS
ticc for a writ of error and tenn
porary Injunction preventing the ref
erendum, pending the hearing of the
appeal. The ncarliess Of the referen-
dun election would prevent the Su-
prcmc Court OF the United States from
hearing the matter until fter the date
for the election would have passed,
and the anti-prohibitionists would
have won their point even if the high
est tribunal would later decide that
the referendum was regular. IF the
date for the election is passed 1t would
be a victory for the antis and the
whole question would be postponed un-
til the next meeting Of the Lcgisla-
turc.
Contention OF Petitioner.
The contention of the petitioner Is
that it is a power granted the Gem
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 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 legislat-
Ing on contingency which Is invalid
and unconstitutional.
The general public thought the pro-