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
te. 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 Sim
gleton Bradford, citizen of Sumter
county, who made application to
Thomas E. Richardson, judge of pro-
bate for 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 udge
Thomas S. Sease of Spartanb>- 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 TO 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 lncof-
porated into and made part Of Iha
title of the amendatory act, is the
regulation Of the importation of Ii
quors into the State. Under that IL
tie it was clearly competent for the
legislature to enact any provision
having a reasonable relation to the
subject, including penalties for viola
tions of the provisions of the act, for
that is clearly means to the end
proposed
Clearly the issuance Of permits
may be regulated by specifying the
conditions upon which they may be
issued, and by penalizing the issuance
of them, except upon the conditions
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
q 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 extfssse.asiiz izssE1> in issuing per-
nits. Nffertheless, ne taking Of a
bond is ninisterialac There
is no asHerence, so fsr as the judicial
qualities of the act are concerned, in
grating licenses to sell liquor and in
issulng permits to import liquor. The
oswer to issue pernaits might have
oeen conferred upon the sheriff, clerk
p court or any other ministerial Of
scer.
The legislature : in express terms,
imposed the duty on the probate
uage and not UPON the probate court
me language us.ed clearly manifests
the fntentan thsA the duty should be
performed Che probate judge, per-
sonally and ministerially, and not by
him as the court