The Lexington dispatch. [volume] (Lexington, South Carolina) 1870-1917, 1893-03-08
The Dispeasary Law constitu-
tiona1.
Judge Simonton Refuses an Injunc-
ton to Restrain the State authori-
ties from Enforcing the Liquor
Dispensary Law.

CSGSe
The complainants in the case ar
A. and E. Cantini, two italian sub
jects, engaged in the liquor bust
ness here. Their lawyers are T. "
Bacot and G.. F. Won Kolnitz, mem
bers of the bar, neither Of whom
however, have been retained by thu
State Liquor Dealers Association
The matter was kept very quiet, and
nothing was known of the case until
the decision was filed late this after.
noon.
Judge Simonton's decision is very
exhaustive. The following is a SUM
mary of the points made by the
complaint and the ruling of the
court thereon:
First. It is alleged that the State
dispensary act is in violation Of Sec
ton 10, Article l, Constitution Of the
United States, forbidding States
without consent of Congress, to levy
any imports or duties on imports Or
exports, except what may be abso
lutely necessary for executing it's in
spection laws.
The court rules hat there is no
provision Of this Act open to this OBJ
lection.
Second. That the Act is in viola
ton of Section 2, Article ~, and also
the fourteenth amendment, which
delares that no State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities Of eiti-
zens of the United States.
The court declares that there
is no inhSssat right in a c~itizennR
is not one OF
ing out Of citizenship Of the 0fs
Third. The complaint charges that
the dispensary act is violation OF the
fifth amendment of the Constitution
of the United States, which forbids
the taking Of property without due
roces of law, and the taking OF
private property for public use with
out just compensation.
To this the court rules that acts
done in the proper exercise OF gov
ernmental powers, and not directly
e~ncroaching upon private property,
although their consequences may i'm
pair it's use, do not entitle the owner
OF such property to compensation
from the State. That the destruc-
ton of property in the exercise OF
the police power of the State, when
such property is used in violation OF
the law in maintaining a public
nuisance, is not the taking of prop
erty for public use, and does not de-
prive the owner of it without due
process Of law.
Fourth. The complaint alleges thai
the law is in violation of the Constr
tuition of the State, which requires
that every act or resolution shall re
late to but one subject, and that shall
be expressed in its title.
The court is very positive In 1T
ruling on this subject. 1t says it Il
a settled principle Of parliamentar!
law in this State that SO long SO thu
enacting words remain in a bill 1t cal
be amended to any extent, even b.
striking out all up to the enactln'
words and inserting other words as
substitute. The Constitution doe
not require every word in every &C
to be read three separate times o
three separate days. If it did, n
important bill ever became u ca
became, q law.
Fifth. The complaint urges ths
the plaintiffs are Italian subjects, an
are protected by the treaty, Attic
II of which gives them the hbert
to travel in the States and Territorlt
to carry on trade, wholesale and r
tail, to hire and occupy houses an
warehouses, etc., upon the same tern
as the natives of the country. Art
h Gle III gives them constant prote
IN ard security for their perso1
asperty and the same RICH
eses as are granted to tt
kiquc