The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1892-01-08
DRINKS IN THE CLUBS.
A DECISION THAT TEEY NEED NOT
PAY A LICENSE.

I The Supreme Court OF South Carolina
! Hands 1t DOwa-Zhe Fight Made By
I the Columbia CIub-The Circum-
stances Similar 70 Those Presented
by the Oelethorpe CLUB.
COLUMBIA, S. C., Jan. "A decision Of
more than local interest was rendered by
the state supreme court to-day. involving
the question Of the liability OF social clubs
TO pay license TO the city for dispensing
liquor u their own members. The city
council OF Columbia. several months ago,
decided that the Columbia Club, a social
organization composed Of leading business
and professional mon, must pay the munich
pal liquor license, or else be liable to the
usual fine Of $50 for failing to
do so. The club appealed to the
supreme court, which rendered its
decision to-day against the city. Some Of
the principal points Of the decision are as
follows: The question whether social clubs
which raise their money by contributions
and then distribute refreshments among
their own members are liable TO a license
tax for retailing spirituous liquors has been
considered by many Of the courts of the
country, both in England and America.
The cases seem not to be in accord. We
have examined many of them in the hope
OF being able to reconcile them, but have
found is impossible to do SO.
CAUSE OF THE CONFLICT.
"We think, however, that much Of the
seeming conflict arises from two causes:
When the alleged club, as a matter of fact,
ia not bona hde what II purports to be, but
Is a mere device to evade the law against
retailing without a license: in all such cases,
OF course, they are liable.
Aud, second, from the difference In the
terms Of the various acts upon the subject,
each court constituting for itself the laws and
regulations of its own state Iu the case
before US the difficulty first above indicated
Is not in our way, for IL has been conceded
and formally found that the Columbia Club
is bona fde social organization for
the uses and purposes declared in its charter.
Inc question then Is whether under our
laws, properly construed, the city council
OF Columbia had the right 90 require the
Columbia Club TO take out license Of 300
for the year 1891 and to pay fine Of $50
for not having done 30. There are two
kinds OF licenses" the judges continues,
lone known as business license and the
other as a liquor license. With the first the
case has nothing to do, as it is conceded
that the club is not engaged in any
kind of trade. business or profession. We
have only TO do then with the liquor license
ana IL seems thab all the different DrOvls-
ions of our law upon the subject are col,
lected in chapter of the general statutes
Section 1876 provides that all cities and
towns shall have power to grant licenses for
the sale of spirituous liquors TO keepers OF
drinking saloons and eating houses, apart
from taverns. Section 1745 provides that
the persons engaged in retailing liquors
must expose their license to public
view, and the liquors shall be
sold In room fronting a
public street without curtains or device to
prevent the public from having full view
OF what is transpiring within. Now con-
sidering these provisions together, what
construction should be placed on them2
They are penal in their nature and should
be strictly construed Is it now perfectly
manifest that by the terms used the leEis-
lature did not intend to embrace social
organizations such as the Columbia Club,
but on the cOntraryl The intent Of the mean
ing OF all these provisions was TO include
only the keepers of drinking
saloons" The opinion holds in
reference to the city ordinance parsed
Dec. %, 1890, requiring clubs to pay the
regular license, that the ordinance must be
construed in Subordiuation to the general
law on the subject. The question whether
distributing liquors among their own,mem-
bers constitutes sale within the meaning
OF the statute is pext taken up. The court
holds that the club owned the liquors and
each member had right to use bis part II
he pleased, and when he called for his
share or any part of 10 subject to account.
10 cannot be called an unlawful sale."