State v. Farnum

• Decision Date: 22 December 1905
• Citation: 53 S.E. 83,73 S.C. 165
• Parties: STATE ex rel. HAY v. FARNUM.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

53 S.E. 83

73 S.C. 165

STATE ex rel. HAY v. FARNUM.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

December 22, 1905

Application by the state, on the relation of J. T. Hay and others, for writ of mandamus against James S. Farnum. Writ granted.

J. T Hay and J. F. Lyon, for petitioners. Mordecai & Gadsden, for respondent.

WOODS J.

This petition for mandamus alleges that J. T. Hay, C. L. Blease Neils Christensen, Jr., T. B. Fraser, J. F. Lyon, A. L Gaston, and J. B. Spivey were, by a concurrent resolution passed on the 25th day of January, 1905, appointed a joint committee of the Senate and House of Representatives to investigate the affairs of the state dispensary, and as a means to that end the resolution provided that the committee "shall have access to all the books and vouchers and other papers of the said institution or any officer or employé thereof," and that it became necessary in the course of the investigation so authorized for petitioners, J. T. Hay, B. F. Lyon, and Neils Christensen, Jr., as a subcommittee of the joint committee to inspect and examine all books, letters, vouchers, and other papers in possession of J. S. Farnum, as despenser of dispensary No. 12, in the city of Charleston. The petition further alleges: ""That on the 17th day of June, 1905, an alternative writ of mandamus was issued by Chief Justice Y. J. Pope, commanding the said J. S. Farnum to deliver to petitioners for inspection all books, papers, letters, letter files, vouchers, and other papers and records in his dispensary No. 12, or that he show cause to the contrary; that said writ was duly and legally served on respondent on the 20th day of June, 1905; that in obedience to said writ respondent allowed petitioners to inspect letter files and other papers called for in his dispensary No. 12, in Charleston, S. C., but stated to petitioners J. Fraser Lyon and Neils Christensen, Jr., that he had, in anticipation of petitioners making demand to be allowed to inspect said letter files and papers in his place of business, removed such letters and papers from the file in said dispensary No. 12, as he did not wish petitioners to see; that said respondent stated that said letters and papers which were removed from dispensary No. 12 were his private matters, which petitioners had no right to inspect; that thereupon petitioners made demand upon the said J. S. Farnum to deliver to them for inspection all of the letters and other papers which had been removed from dispensary No. 12, under the circumstances hereinbefore alleged, but respondent refused to allow petitioners to inspect said papers and letters; that many of the letters and papers removed from said dispensary No. 12 and placed beyond the reach of said committee, as your petitioners are informed and believe, and so allege, bear directly upon and give information concerning matters which petitioners are authorized and ordered to investigate under the terms of the said resolution; that if the said J. S. Farnum is allowed to withhold the said letters and papers from your petitioners they will be hindered and circumvented in carrying out the terms of said concurrent resolution, and the state will be deprived of the benefit of the information contained in said letters and papers." The petitioners pray for a writ of mandamus commanding J. S. Farnum ""to immediately deliver into the possession of petitioners for inspection all letters, papers, vouchers, and books removed from dispensary No. 12, in Charleston, S. C., and all books, papers, vouchers and records in his possession or under his control relating to the affairs of the dispensary, or of any officer, employé, or agent thereof; (2) that the said J. S. Farnum be restrained and enjoined from removing, making away with, or putting beyond the reach of your petitioners any of said letters or papers covered by the provisions of said concurrent resolution."

An order was made by the Chief Justice on July 15, 1905, requiring the defendant to show cause at his chambers on July 25, 1905, why the writ of the mandamus should not issue as prayed for, and in the meantime enjoining the defendant from removing, secreting, or placing the documents referred to beyond the reach of the petitioners. The defendant denied the committee had any power whatever, because the subject of the resolution under which it was appointed was not expressed in the title, because it lacked the style, "Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of South Carolina," and because the several readings, the signature of the Governor, and other formalities necessary under the Constitution to give a bill or joint resolution force of law, were not complied with. The defendant further insists the resolution is null and void, and this proceeding cannot be maintained thereunder, because it violates the provisions of the federal Constitution (Amendment 4) and the state Constitution (article 1, § 16), which provides: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seised." Finally, the defendant alleges he has exhibited to the committee all books and other documents in dispensary No. 12, which relate to that business, and that he has removed only those which related to his private business, having no relation whatever to the dispensary. This return was traversed, the petitioners denying the legal conclusions stated by the defendant, submitting the question involved to the determination of the court, and alleging that the office held by the defendant was a public office, subject to examination by any committee of the General Assembly authorized to make such examination, and that the books, papers, and documents therein are public records subject to like examination.

The issues...