The Chesterfield advertiser. [volume] (Chesterfield C.H., S.C.) 1884-1978, 1915-08-12
VETS TO fight DRYS
PROCEEDINGS BEGUN TO STOP
PROHIBITION ELECTION
CLAIMS ACT IS ILLEGAL

Associate Justice Watts Refuses to
Grant Injunction But Sets August
20 as Date for the Supreme Court
to Hear the Whole Matter and De-
eide Question Involved.
II proceedings begun in the Su-
preme 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 referen-
DUN.
An application was made at Lau-
rens Friday, according to The News
| and Courier, by Cole L. Blease, for
mer governor of South Carolina, and
Frank G. Thompson of Columbia, at
| torneys representing John Harry
| Chapel, a taxpayer, of Newberry,
| asking for an Injunction preventing
the referendum. Associate Justice
Watts, before whom the application
was made, refused to sign an injunc-
tion, 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 mat
ter.
Significance is attached to that sec
| tion in the petition asking for the
| injunction in that it is alleged the
referendum Is in violation both of
the United States. Observers see in
the federal question an opening to
take the case to the United States
Supreme Court should the anti-pro-
hibitionists lose out in the state
courts.
This could be done either by get
ting writ of error from the chief
justice Of the state Supreme Court or
by applying to a United States Su-
preme Court Justice for a writ of
error and temporary injunction <re-
venting the referendum, pending the
hearing of the appeal.
The nearness Of the referendum
election would prevent the Supreme
Court Of the United States from hear
ing the matter until after 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 decire that
the referendum was regular. II the
date for the election is passed 1t
| would be victory for the antis and
the whole question would be post
poned until tie next meeting of the
legislature.
The contention of the petitioner is
that 1t Is a 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
regulation Of the liquor traffic shall
prevail, and that this power can not
be passed or delegated to the people
| through a referendum election. They
| also point oIt that the referendum
act provides for the winding up of
the dispensaries in case prohibition
wins, and this they declare is legis-
lating on a contingency which Is in
| valid and unconstitutional.
The general public thought the
prohibitionists were certain Of VIC
| tory and that the antis were not even
going to make fght, and on every
| hand one could hear that the result
was foregone conclusion. The first
| move against prohibition came Fri
day when attorneys representing Mr.
Chappell, a taxpayer, of Newberry,
applied to Associate Justice Watts
for an injunction preventing the cleo
| tion on the ground that the act pass
| ed by the legislature providing for
the referendum on September IA is
unconstitutional and invalid
| The action was directed against
| Secretary of State r. M. McCown,
State Treasurer s. T. Carter. Comp
troller General Carlton w. Sawyer,
and c. T. Graydon, Zeb Hope and j.
| 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.
| Mr.. Chappell says in his petition
that he is personal prohibitionist,
and expects to vote for statewide
prohibition in the referendum cleo
ton, but that he thinks IL is unconsti-
tutional, and the election would be
invalid, and 1t would, therefore, in
volVe an unnecessary expense on the
taxpayers, rec ting that thirty-five
thousand eight hundred dollars 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-
htbition carries, the petitioner says ::
THE aforesaid provisions end sec
tions OF said act are in violation of
Article A. Section 4, of the constitu-
tion of the United States; of Article
s, Section 1, of the constitution of
the state of South Carolina, and Arti-
Gle 8, Section Q, OF the constitution
OF the state of South Carolina"
Mr.. Tompkins, one OF the attor-
neys for Mr.. Chappell, the petitioner,
would not say Saturday morning
whether they would seek to take the
case to the Supreme Court or not II
they lost before the State Court. He
would make no comment, and only
smiled when 1t was suggested that
they lad provided In their petition
for taking the fight to the United
States Supreme Court by bringing in
the federal constitutionality OF the
act.
Prohibitionists are confident tha,
the Supreme Court will decide the
act as regular and constitutional, and
will not en- ioin the election Tbav