The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1892-01-13
THE COLUMBIA CLUB WINS.
Tho Supreme Court Decides That no NUM-
cipal License Can be Charged for tho
"Distribution" Of Liquor Among
the Members.
Register, sth.l
The Columbia Club has won and the

[Regi.ter, sth.l
The Columbia CLUB has won and the
city of Columbia has lost.
The Supreme Court decided the much
talked of Club case adversely to the city
yesterday, and in the future the Club
can furnish their members with liquors
of all descriptions without paying toll
to the city treasury.
Justice MCGOWAN rendered the opin-
ion, which was concurred in by Chief
Justice McIver. Justice Pope did not
hear the evidence.
The principal points in the decisior
are as follows:
1.-THE question, whether social clubs,
which raise the money by contribu-
tions and then distribute refreshments
among its own members, are liable to q
license tax for retailing spirituous Ii
quors, has been considered by many of
the courts Of the country, both in En-
gland and America. The cases seem
not to be in accord. We have exam
ined many of them in the hope of be-
ng able to reconcile them, but have
found it impossible to do so. We think,
however, that much Of the seeming
conflict arises from two causes; When
the alleged club as matter Of fact ii
not bona fde what it purports to be,
but is mere device to -evade the law
against retailing without a license. In
ell such cases, of course, they are lia-
BILE. And, second, from the difference
in the terms Of the various acts upor
the subject, each court constituting for
itself the laws and regulations of its
own State.
"In the case before US the difficulty
first above indicated is not in our way,
for it has been considered and formally
found that the Columbia Club is a
bona fde social organization for the
uses and purposes declared in its char
ter.
"The question then is whether under
our laws, properly construed, the City
Council of Columbia nad the right to
require the Columbia Club to take out
a license of 5000 for the year 1891, and
to pay fine of $50 for not having done
so?
"There are two kinds of licenses"
the Judge continues, one known as a
business license, and the other as
'liquo: license With the first the case
has nothing to do, as it is conceded
that the club is not engaged in any
awe have only to do, then, with the
liquor license, and it seems that all the
different provisions of our law upon
the subject are collected in Chapter 4 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 eat
ing houses, apart from taverns.
Section 1745 provides, among other
things, that the persons engaged in re-
failing liquors must expose their IL
cense to public view, and the liquors
shall be sold in a room fronting a pub
lie street, without curtains or other de-
vice to prevent the public from having
full view of what is transpiring with
in.
"Now, considering these provisions
together, what construction should be
placed on them? They are penal in
their nature and should be strictly con-
strued. Is it not perfectly manifest
that, by the terms used, the Legisla-
ture did rot intend to embrace social
organizations, such as the Columbia
Club, but, on the contrary. the true
intent and meaning of all these provis-
ions was to include only the keepers
Of drinking saloons.'"
With reference to the city ordinance,
passed December %, 1890, requiring
clubs to pay the regular license, the
option holds that the ordinance must
be construed in subordination to the
general law on the subject.
The court holds that distributing il
quors among its members does not con-
stitute a sale by the club.
Many cases were cited in support of
the opinion.