The Pickens sentinel. [volume] (Pickens, S.C.) 1871-1903, 1893-05-25
President of the Senate and Speaker of
the House of Representatives.. and also

shows on its fact that it originated in
the House OF Representatives, received
three readings in each House, and was,
therefore, duly enrolled and ratified.
\ ct it is contended that notwithstand-
ing this due regularity Of the enrolled
ACT that the journals of the two
houses fail to correspond in every par
tlcuiar with the entries of amend
ments ON the original bill Thus is pre-
sented for orr consideration the ques,
tion that has given rise to not only
~ uch discussion in the Courts Of the
different States OF this Union, bnt also
a contrariety in the decisions OF such
Courts Of such questions, nor has our
own State Supr"m me Court been free
from either difficulty in our past his
tory.
Here is where Justice Pope again
breaks a record and says: ave feel
that this is q proper occasion to place
tn, Court fairly and unanimously on
record in this matter. There have
been two decisions of this Court on
this subject and both most unsatistac-
tory, there being a strong dissenting
opinion in each" The cases of the
Sta'e VS.. Platt and the State vs.. HagOod
were discussed a. length and he quotes
freely from t;'e latter decision. Very
extended extracts are made from the
oDinion Of Justics Harlan in Field VS.
Clark, 143 u. S. Reports, $40, which is
in favor of bill as passed and enrolled
speaking for itself. a cyclopedia Of
cases are cited from various States,
when the Court says: Everyone admits
that the English rule has unswervIDg-
ly upheld the doctrine for which we
Shall and do contend. Therefore how
ever unpleasant it may be to reverse
previous decisions OF this Court, still
after full and mature considerations
we feel it TO be duty we owe the
State that the case of the State va
overrul"d, and rs the case of lIagoDA,
supra, was reIllv decided upon the an
thority of Platts case, il follows nee
essarlly that the cas-" of IIagDod muSt
fall when the foundation upon which
1t reS'S is taken away. The announce.
meat that the true rLle Is that when au
Act has heeu duly higned by the pre-
siding officer Of the General Assembly,
in open session by the senate aud
House, approved by the Governor Of
the State and duly deposited in tn"
Office Of the Secretary OF State, it is suf-
ticS MT evidence, nothing to the contca-
ry appearing upon its face, that il
passed the General Assembly, and tha.,
1t is not competent, either by the Jour
Dals Of the two houses, Or either OF
Them, or by any other evidence, to inn
peach such an act, and t'iS being 50 it
follows that the Court is not al liberty
TO inquire into what the Journals of
the two houses may show as to the sue
cessive steps which may have been
taken in the passage Of the original bill
1t will be observed that this conclusion
by no means negatives the power ot
the Court to inquire into those prerp-
quisitcs fixed by the Constitution, and
of which prerequisites the journals of
the two houses are required to furnish
the evidences, such for instance rs the
organization Of the two houses, the
presence of il quorum, the votes two
thirds Of the members by yeas and
nays to be entered on the journals in
certain cases. AS to the objection as
to the title being too narrow, the Court
cites four South Carolina cases on the
point, and in the last case quotes from
San Antonio VS. Mahaify. u. S. When
an Act Of the Legislature expresses in
its title the object OF the Act, the title
embraces and expresses any law ful
means to achieve the object, thus full
lilling the constitutional Injunction
that every law shall embrace but one
subject that shall be expressed in its
ny those cases to the Act we are now
considering, we are unable to see that
1t does not fully answer the require
ments OF this section of the Constitu-
ton.
Lastly, the Court Considers the consti.
tutional points and says: AS to these
several points embodied in the four OBJ
j9ctiOns, wherein it is claimed that the
Act we are now considering is in VIC
latiOn OF certain provision of our Con.
stitutiOn, as we'll as that Of the United
States, we do not see how such ques-
tiOnS can arise in this case. The only
question really involved here is wheth-
or said Act violates the Constitution in
forbiddlng the granting of licenses to
retail Spirituous liquors beyond the
30Lh of June, 1893, and to that ques
tion we have confined our attention,
and having reached the conclusion
that the said Act being in affect an
Act to regulate the sale of spirituOus
| liquors, tie power to dc which is uni
yerSali, recognized, It is quite clear
| that there Is nothing unconstitutional
in forbidding the granting Of licenses
to sell liquor except in the manner
prescribed by the Act. But whether
the Act contains other features moi
affecting the right or REALTORS to the
licenses claimed by them is a question
that cannot properly arise in these
cases and cannot, therefore, be consid-
cred, for, as we have said above, it.
would be extra judicial TO do so. IL is
the judgment of this Court that the
prayer Of the petitioners he denied and
the petitions for mandnmas be dis
missed
The decision covers tH elve fun pages
of legal cap writing in the small chiro-
grafhy OF Justice Pope.-News and
| Courier.
| About POll Taxes.
| COLUMBIA, May 18-The following
decision rendered by the Attorney
| General in the m after of the pnlI taY