The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1893-10-17

tiOn of finance.
Aliens amendment is a free coinage
proposition.
--1f -
THE DIsPENsARY AGAIN.
Judge Hudson Declares the Act In.
valid I'm All Its Parts-He Says the
Law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, Null and
Void.
Special to the News and Courier.
COLUMBIA, Oct. 1.-THE State now
has the opportunity of testing all CON
stitutional points that can be raised in
reference to the Dispe nsary Act. AS
result OF the opinion filed to-day by
Judge Hudson all these questions can
be heard by the Supreme Court upon
al appeal on the part ot the State.
This will no doubt be the result of the
whole matter, as Governor Tillman has
often said that he was anxious to ac-
cept the opportunity to have a final de-
cision of the court of last resort in this
State. 1t will now be seen whether
this was mere talk or whether the
State really wants the questions de-
cided by the Supreme Court.
Judge Hudson has now decided that
the dispensary law from beginning to
end Is unconstitutional that it was
ernment and that if one and the fun
damental part Of it is wrong the aux
iliary parts of it must necessarily fall
with it. The counsel for the liquor
men are anxious for the State to push
the issue. AS the liquor men who
were charged with selling rico beer
hold annual licenses and the present
indictments against them have been
quashed, the cases are at an end, un-
less the State should succeed in its ap-
peal. Judge Hudson holds that the
statute in existence prior to the pas
sage OF the Dispensary Act is now in
force. Solicitor Nelson is awaiting in
structions from Attorney General
Townsend before he takes any further
action. He is of the opinion that all
of the cases had just as we'll be dismiss
ed If no appeal is to be made. II the
State can find any other way of bring
ing an Indictment it has the oppor-
tunity Of doing so.
When the court met this morning
Judge Hudson surprised the bar with
the announcement that he had worked
on the case most of the night and had
come to conclusion. He made an
oral announcement of his views and
promised that he would prepare his
reasons in writing at the earliest op-
portunity. He said
=" / beg to say to counsel arguing
the case yesterday, in which parties
were charged with selling liquor, that
/ devoted last night to careful exami-
nation of the authorities contained in
the books and in the written arguments
submitted to me, and have arrived at
a conclusion, but have not had time
to reduce to writing the reasons for
the conclusions which have reached.
But inasmuch as it is necessary that
conclusions should bo announced as
soon as possible, so rs to determine
what disposition is to be made of these
cases upon the docket, will announce
them now, and will, rs soon as prac-
ticable, give my reasons therefor.
:" In the first place, whether these
indictments shall be considered as
drawn for the violation of the So
called dispensary law, or whether
they should be indictments against the
law as 1T previously stood is inmate
rial, so far as one view Of the case may
go.
The indictments are fatally defec-
tive, whether drawn with reference to
the previous law or with reference to
the dispensary law. The allegations
in the Indictment are not sufficient; it
is just naked allegation that the de-
fendant is guilty of selling intoxicat-
ing liquor contrary to the form of the
statute. That is not sufficient. 1t is
necessary that the party shall be noti-
fled OF the time, place and person to
whom the sale was made. Every one
charged with the crime has the right
to be informed of the exact nature of
the charge, the time, place and circum
on fu sal> a.
crime was committed. These indict-
ments do not contain such allegations.
and had they been preferred against
the defendants before the enactment
of the dispensary law they would have
fallen under q motion to quash. At
the present time, supposing the dis
pensary to be valid and in full force.
the same objection applies, and the in
dictment would have to be quashed. 7
might stop here and say no more, but
in doing 80 would not discharge nv
duty as q judge, because the parties
are entitled to have their motion
passed upon for reasons assigned there
for, and 1t devolves upon me, there
fore, to meet the responsibility and to
determine the whole question now.
Admitting for the sake of argument
that the dispensary law is c0nstitu-
Oiohai, ~ lS stn dHOualy WnlCn would
not be discovered from casual reading
OF the act but 1T nevertheless exists,
that for the single act of retailing no
punishment Is prescribed in any of the
various sections. Punishment is pro-
vided against this violation in certain
particulars not necessary now to enu-
merate, but in no section of the act is
any punishment prescribed for the
single act of retailing.
"The repeating clause of the dispen-
sary act destroys all previous systems,
revokes every statute passed upon the
subject OF retailing, and prescribes es-
pecially that for a violation of it the
party shall be punished according to
the provisions OF the dispensary law.
So we cannot seek for punishment, can
not seek for penalty In any previous
existing act, IL the dispensary act
should stand. It is a angular ornis.