The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1893-05-24
IN FAVOR OF THE DIsPENsARY.
The Chester Liquor Cases Decided Against
the Liquor Dealers by Our
Supreme Court.
columbia Journal, 18th. ]

SOlulu0ld JOuluSI, ILL.,.
The Supreme Court rendered its de-
cision in the Chester whiskey case at Z
o'clock last night, rather an unusual
hour.
It is against the whiskey men. in so
far as it relates to the right of the Ches-
ter liquor mea to demand license for
a full year. It does not pass upon the
constitutionality Of the Dispensary act
at all. The complaint of the REALTORS is
familiar to the readers of the Journal,
as well as the point raised by the At
torney General, denying the right of
the whiskey men to use the States
name without its consent.
Consideration of the denial by the
State of the right of the relators to the
use of its name was waived by the
court altogether.
The complaint Of the relator was re-
viewed at some length, and the court
declares that it will only pass upon the
complaint of the relator as it bears
upon their right to have license is
sued BY the town council of Chester for
a year.
After taking the position that the en-
dorsement of the legislative officers
proves the passage of the bill, the de-
cision says, with regard to the failure
of the journals of the two houses to
agree:
"However unpleasant it may be to
revise previous decisions of the court,
still, after full and mature considera-
ton, We feel it 70 be duty we owe the
State that the case OF the State vs.
Platt should be, and is, hereby over
ruled; and as the State vs.. Hagood was
really decided upon the authority of
Platt's case, it follows necessarily that
the case of Hagood must fall when the
foundation on which. it rests is taken
away.
ave announce that when an Act has
been duly signed by the presiding Off
GERS of the General Assembly, in open
session of the Senate House, approved
by the Governor of the State, and duly
deposited in the Office Of the Secretary
of State, it is sufficient evidence, moth
ing to the contrary appearing upon its
face, that it passed the General Assem-
bly,, and that it is not competent either
by the journal of the two houses OF
either of then, or by any other evi.
dence, to impeach such an Act. And
this being so, it follows that the court
is not at liberty: to inquire into what
the journals of the two houses may
show as to the successive steps which
may have been taken in the passage Of
the original bill. ...
"It will be observed that this conclu-
sion by no means negatives the power
of the court to inquire into those pre-
requisites fixed by the constitution, and
of which prerequisites the journals Of
the two houses are required to furnish
the evidences, such, for instance, as the
organization of the two houses, the
presence of a quorum, the votes of two
thirds of the members by. ayes and noes
to be entered on the journals in certain
cases."
The court says it is quito clear that
there is nothing unconstitutional in
forbidding the granting Of licenses to
sell liquor except in the manner pre-
scribed by the Act. But whether the
act contains other features not affect
ing the right of relators to the licenses
claimed by them is a question that can.
not properly arise in these cases and
cannot therefore be considered, for, as
we have said above, it would be extra
judicial to do so.
lit is the judgment of this court that
the prayer of the petitioners be denied
and the petition for mandamus be dis
missed" -.-.. .---.... ..----.
WHAT THE CHARLESTON LIQUOR DEAL
ERs HAVE TO SAY.
iNou,c on5 ro,,rior 18Th