Chappell v. McCown

Full title: CHAPPELL v. McCOWN ET AL

Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Dec 17, 1915

103 S.C. 6 (S.C. 1915)

87 S.E. 147

Opinion

9246

December 17, 1915.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. August, 1915.

Petition by John Henry Chappell, an elector and taxpayer for an injunction against R.M. McCown, as Secretary of State, S.T. Carter, as State Treasurer, and C.W. Sawyer, as Comptroller General, and C.T. Graydon, Warren M. Thomas and J.F. Howell, as Commissioners of Election for Richland County, to enjoin them from incurring expenses in preparing for the election directed by an act to submit to the qualified electors of the State the question of the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquors, etc., approved February 16, 1915, 29 States. 88, on the alleged ground that the act is unconstitutional and void.

The Circuit Judges, being called to the assistance of the Supreme Court in this case, which was heard by the Judges sitting en banc, in August, 1915.

Messrs. Frank G. Tompkins and Cole. L. Blease, for petitioner, cite: As to right of plaintiff to bring action: 75 S.C. 418; 97 S.C. 3. Injunction will be granted where property rights are involved and there is no adequate remedy at law: 81 S.C. 392; 78 S.C. 570; 94 S.C. 199; 44 S.C. 256; 26 S.E. 425. Injunction proper remedy: 41 S.C. 220, 253, 259 to 264; 17 L.R.A. 145; 65 S.E. 72; 132 Ga. 727; 62 S.C. 68. The legislature cannot delegate its power to the voters: U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. 4; State Const., art. III, sec. 1; art. I, sec. 14; Ib., sec. 13; 60 S.C. 1; 30 S.C. 519; 87 S.C. 270; 72 Pa. St. 508; 13 Am. St. Rep. 716; 6 A. E. Enc. of L. 1021; 36 N.J. 72; 13 Am. Rep. 72; Cooley's Const. Lim. (6th ed.), pp. 137, 140, 143; Oberholtzer, The Referendum, Initiative Recall in America, pp. 208 and 210, 216; 6 R.C.L. " Delegation of legislative power:" 5 Iowa 492; 4 Harrington 492; 33 Iowa 134; 8 N.Y. 483; 59 Am. Dec. 506; 92 N.Y. 311, 316; 44 Am. Rep. 380; 134 N.Y. 506; 31 N.E. 873; 70 S.C. 361; 191 N.Y. 428; 84 N.E. 380; 62 Mo. 188, 194; 21 Am. Rep. 411; 23 L.R.A. 113; 115 Tenn. 445; 91 S.W. 293; 48 Cal. 279; Locke, Two Treatises on Government 276; 62 Mo. 188; 21 Am.Rep. 411; 92 Wis. 63; 65 N.W. 738; 3 R.I. 33; 3 Mich. 343; 26 Vt. 357; 6 N.H. 264; 2 Iowa 165; 8 N.Y. 483.

Messrs. Thos. H. Peeples, Attorney General, and Fred. H. Dominick, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents, submit: Plaintiff has a plain and adequate remedy at law: 78 S.C. 570; 79 S.C. 414; 78 S.C. 228. Election should not be enjoined: Paine Elections, sec. 940; 54 S.C. 1; 81 S.C. 392; note in 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 577; 123 La. 443; 49 So. 12; 58 W. Va. 651; 52 S.E. 776; 78 Miss. 648; 29 So. 465; 88 Miss. 489; 41 So. 186; 9 Ann. Cas. 120; 132 Ga. 727; 65 S.E. 72; 31 Okla. 620; 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 576; 61 Ill. 201; 48 Ill. 485; 62 Ill. 306; 82 Ill. 119; 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 382; 30 L.R.A. 90; 16 C.C.A. 516; 69 Fed. 852; 151 Ill. 41; 25 L.R.A. 143. Initiative and Referendum: 44 Oregon 120; 74 P. 710; 75 P. 222; 53 Oregon 162; 99 P. 427; 57 Oregon 102; 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 339; 223 U.S. 110; 223 U.S. 151; 21 Okla. 33; 95 P. 435; 18 Ann. Cas. 197; 106 Ark. 506; 153 S.W. 826; notes in 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1092, and 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 969; 112 P. 402; 53 Wn. 432; 102 P. 408; 137 Iowa 452; 115 N.W. 177; 113 P. 775; Cooley's Const. Lim., p. 120; 26 Wis. 291; 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 483; Black, Intoxicating Liquors, sec. 45; Cooley's Const. Lim. 174; 13 Bush. 485; 37 Iowa 462; 50 N.J.L. 585; 1 L.R.A. 86; 5 Dak. 397; 3 L.R.A. 355; 41 N.W. 746; 46 Ohio St. Rep. 607; 6 L.R.A. 745; 23 N.E. 63; 1 Bl. Com. 57; 84 Va. 619; 5 S.E. 565; 14 Bush. 218; 29 Am. Rep. 407; 64 Miss. 59; 8 So. 201; 82 Mich. 393; 10 L.R.A. 69; 47 N.W. 39; 86 N.C. 8; 21 Vt. 456; 23 Cyc. 78, 79; 95 S.C. 104; note in 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 942; 73 Ga. 604; 29 Fed. 865; 42 Ind. 547; 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 482; 42 Ind. 547; 72 Pa. 491; 13 Am.Rep. 716; 40 Mo. 458, 464; 42 Md. 71; 20 Am. Rep. 83.

Mr. D.W. Robinson, as amicus curiae, also filed an argument for respondents, cites: As to Federal guaranty of republican form of government: 2 U.S. 457; Federalist, No. 38; 139 U.S. 461; 178 U.S. 578; 88 U.S. 162; 74 U.S. 700; Black. Const. Law, ch. 10, sec. 91, p. 239. Only political rights are involved: Anderson, L.D. 905; 2 Bouvier L. Dic. 597; 105 N.W. 520; 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 382, and cases in note; 36 Cal. 658, 662; 151 Ill. 41; 25 L.R.A. 146; 30 L.R.A. 97; 69 Fed. 16; C.C.A. 516. The questions involved are governmental and political: Black. Const. L., ch. 5, sec. 52, p. 83; 73 U.S. 50; 5 Pet. 20; 48 U.S. 42; 71 U.S. 475; 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 576-8; 178 U.S. 579; 139 U.S. 449. The Constitution requires free elections: Art. II, sec. 15; art. I, sec. 1. And the Courts will not interfere: 78 S.C. 575; 81 S.C. 392; 44 S.C. 259, 268; 189 U.S. 487, 488; 231 U.S. 38; 15 L.R.A. 572, 573.

The petition was then refused in a formal order.

December 17, 1915.

The opinion of the Court, en banc, was delivered

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner sought in this action to enjoin the holding of the election which was authorized by act of the legislature ( 29 Stat. 88) on the question of the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquors and beverages in this State.

The motion for injunction was heard by the Court en banc last August, and, at that time, an order was filed refusing it, and stating that the reason therefor would be given later.

It is not deemed necessary to discuss the various grounds urged by petitioner why the election should be enjoined, or those urged by respondents why it should not. It is sufficient to say that the Court was and is unanimously of the opinion that the motion should be refused on the ground that petitioner has an adequate remedy at law.