The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1893-11-08

are received or, Kept for the purpose OF
barter or sale, as Beverage or distlibu-
ton or division among the members of
any club or association, by any means
whatever, and every person who shall
barter, sell, or assist or aoet another in
bartering or selling any intoxicating
liquors SO received or kept, shall be
deemed guilty Of misdemeanor, and
upon conviction thereof be punished by
Zine of not less than one hundred dol
lars, nor more than five hundred dollars,
aud by imprisonment ir the county Jail
not less than ninety days, nor more than
one year." It is clear chat this section
does not confine its provisions to clubs
ing and selling Of liquor in "any ether
place."
The third and last ground, and the main
ground, is that the sDispensary Act is
unconstitutio and the argument under
this branch is concerned chiefly with the
purpose Of the Act and the question as to
the police power Of the State.
Z There seems to be some confusion
regarding the distinction between the
Federal Constitution and the State Con-
:stitution. They are essentially different
in their nature. The Constitution of the
United States confers upon Congress
certain we'll defined powers, and such
other powers only as are necessarily i'm
piled from such grant, and when an issue
arises as to the nconstitutionality Of an
Act of Congress the question is, "has the
power to legislate on the subject matter
Of the Act been granted to Congress by
the Federal Constitution" On the other
hand the Constitution Of South Carolina
bestows general legislative power upon
the General Assembly with very few
Limitations; and therefore, upon an issue
regarding the constitutionality OF an Act
OF the General Assembly of the State the
question is, "has the power to legislate
upon the subject matter Of this Act been
withheld by the State Constitution 2"
= On this point have here an excellent
authority which / shall read: "The peo-
pie of a State, in creating by their
organic law legislative department OF
government, confer upon it the whole of
their inherently. sovereign and uncon-
trolled power Of legislation, except in so
far as they have delegated this power in
respect to certain subjects and under
certain restrictions to the Congress Of the
United States, and except also in so far as
they contemporaneously impose checks
and limits upon the legislative authority.
Hence the Legislature Of State may
enact any law (not infringing upon the
other departments) of any character or on
any subject unless it is prohibited either
in express terms or by necessary impli-
cation in the Constitution of the United
States or Of that State. In other words
the constitutions are to BIZ considered as
Limitation upon the legislative power Of
the State, not as grants of power (3d Am.
and Eng. Encyclopaedia of Law, esq.,
In note to the above quotation occurs
the following: "The distinction between
the United States Constitution and the
State Constitution is that the former con-
fers upon Congress certain specified
powers only, while the latter confers upon
the Legislature all legislative powers.
In the one case the powers specifically
granted can only be exercised, in the
other all legislative powers not prescrib-
ed" Citing People VS.. Flagg, 46 N. Y,
401; Page VS.. Allen, SO Pa. st., 33S.
Applying the doctrine just quoted,
which must be recognized as sound doc
trine, the unconstitutionality Of the Dis
pensary Act must be made to appear
from some limitation contained In our
State Constitution itself upon the power
Of the General Assembly to enact such
law.
No such limitation has been pointed
out to me nor am aware OF any such
Limitation, either express or implied.
Even if the power of the General Assem-
bly to enact the dispensary law could be
derived only from its police power there
can be no question that under that power
it would have ample authority to restrict
the sale or traffic in liquor. The State
has frequently done so in the past by
statutes intended to regulate and restrict
the traffic in liquor without question as
to its right and authority so to do.
This Act declares in its title that such
is it's purpose, San Act to prohibit the
manufacture and SALE" etc, "except as
herein provided" and its provisions
undertake To accomplish that very thing
by numerous limitations such as restrict
ing the places at which liquor is to be
sold, the hours at which it is to be sold,
the persons to whom it shall be unlawful
to sell LIQUOR, the character of the persons
by whom it is to be sold, the not selling
on credit, the prohibition as to drinking
on the premises, the limiting the amount
to be sold to purchasers, the written
application signed by each purchaser and
other restrictions that need not be mem
toned here.
It appears upon the face of the Dispen-
sary Act as It stands upon the statute
book that the purpose and primary
object of those who passed it was to
diminish the sale aud consumption of
liuuor and to decrease the evils which
are believed to result from the liquor
traffic for the public good, and I feel
bound to say fiom my own observation
that the Act seems to be accomplishing
that benefcent object. On this ground,
as it appears to me, it is without doubt q
proper exercise OF the police power of
the State. It has been learnedly argued
TO-DAY that the purpose Of the Act " as to
raise revenue. But it is to be collected
from the Act itself that the raising OF
revenue is only incidental to the main