The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1918-10-16
PROHIBITION LAW UPHELD.
SUPREME TRIBUNAL RENDERS
UNANIMOUS DECISION.
Case Brought in Sumter County
Against Judge Of Probate for Not
Issuing Permit.

Columbia, Oct. 1.-THE prohibition
law of South Carolina was yester-
day declared to be constitutional by
unanimous opinion of the State su-
preme court. The opinion was writ
ten by D. E. Hydrick, associate jus
tice, and concurred in by Chief JUS
tice Gary, and Associate Justices
Watts, Fraser and Gage.
The case was first brought by SIN
county, who made application to
Thomas E. Richardson, judge of pro-
bate for a permit with which to order
whiskey, the permit being denied by
Mr.. Richardson to test the. constitu-
tionality Of the law. Arguments IN
the case were made before Judge
Thomas S. .Sease of Spartanb1rg in
March, 1918, at which time Judge
Sease overruled both grounds of con-
tention and declared the law constitu-
tional From this decision Mr.. Rich
ardson appealed to the supreme
court In his opinion Judge Hydrick
says:
The respondent applied 10 the
probate judge of Sumter county for a
permit, and filed the affidavit requir
ed, but the probate judge refused to
issue the permit, alleging that the
act is unconstitutional on two
grounds: First, because it violates
section II, which says that every act
shall relate to but one subject and
that shall be expressed in the title.
And second, because it violates sec
ton 19 of article 5, in that it attempts
to extend the jurisdiction Of the pro-
bate court. The circuit court over
ruled both grounds and the probate
Judge appealed.
The subject expressed in the title
of the original act, which is inco1,-
porated into and made a part of Ehe
title of the amendatory act, is the
regulation Of the importation of Ii
quors into the State. Under that ii
tie it was clearly competent for the
legislature to enact any provision
having a reasonable relation to the
subject, including penalties for viola
tons of the provisions of the act, for
that is clearly a means to the end
proposed
Clearly the issuance of permits
may be regulated by specifying the
onaitions upon which they may be
issued, and by penalizing the issuance
of them, except upon the conditions
specified. -.
The duty imposed upon the pro-
bate judges is not an extension of the
jurisdiction Of the probate courts.
While the probate judge is required to
exercise Judgment and discretion in
issuing permits, in that he must be
of the truth Of the state
ments contained in the affidavit be-
fore doing so, it by no means fol-
lows that in doing SO he is performing
3 judicial function. It is rather one
Of a ministerial nature. He is requir-
ed to exercise judgment and disore-
ton in taking bonds, perhaps to a
greater exteehT han~ in issuing per-
nits NsTertheless, t:ae taking of n
bond is a ministerial act. s. There
IS 10 difference, so far as the judicial
qualities of the act are concerned, in
licenses to Sell liquor and in
ss1ing permits to Import liquor. The
osSwer to issue permits might have
o4en conferred upor the sheriff, clerk
81 court or any otter ministerial Of
The legislatug in express terms,
Imposed the dyy on the probate
nudge and not upn the probate court.
The Language ged clearly manifests
the~intenr1otn tst the duty should be
performed BY The probate judge, per-
sonally and ministerialiy, and not by
aim as the court