The weekly Union times. [volume] (Union C.H., South Carolina) 1871-1894, 1893-11-17
{Bject matter of tho Act been
Congress by the Foicral Consti-

On the other hand, the Constitution of |
South Carolina bestows generally legislative |
p lwer upon the General Assembly with very |
few limitatioIs; and therefore, upon an
issue regarding the constitutionaliy of an
Act of the General Assembly Of the State,
the qucstio is: elias power to legislate
upon the subject matter of this Act been
withheld by the State Constitution
On this point | have here an excellent
authority which j shall read:
"The people of State, in creating by
their organic law "A legislative department of
government, confer upon it the whole u
their inhereutly severe gn and uncontrolled
power of lcgis lation, except in 50 far as they
have delegated this power i'll respect to Ger
tain restrictions to the Con.ress of Tie
United States anl except also in so far a.
they contemporaneOusly impose checks and
limits upon the legislative authority. Hence
the Legs' ature of II State may enact any
law mot infringing upon the ether depart
ments,) Of any character or On any subject,
unles. it is prohibited, either in express
term, or by necessary implication, in :he
C,nstitut OH Of the United States or Of that
Snte, In other words, the constitutions
are to be consider ed as limitations upon the
legislative power of the State, not as grants
"f power" I'D Am. and Eng. Encyc. of
Law, ESQ.,
In note two to the above quotation occurs
!h, following:
The distinction between the United
States Constitution and the Slate Constitution
is, that the former confers upon Congress Ger.
tain specified powers only, while the latter
coufers upon the Legislature ali legislative
power In tho one case, the powers speci-
hclliy granted can only be exercised in
The other. all legislative powers not pre-
acribed." Getting People vs.. Flagg, as i.
l., 4Ol: Page vs.. Allen, 90 Pa. Stat 33s.)
Applying the doctrine just quoted, which
must be recognized rs sound doctrine, tho
uuconstitutionality of the Dispensary Act
must be made to appear from some limlta-
lion contained in our State Constitution
itself upon the power Of the General Assem-
bly, 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 Of or the traffic in liquor. The State
has frequently done so in the past by stat
utes in ended to regulate and restrict the
traffic in liquor, without question as 10 Its
right and authority 30 to do.
This Act declares IN I's 'lIie .i"l suo" 10
its purpose: can Act to prohibit the manu-
facture and SALE etc, except as herein
provided" And its provisions undertake
to accomplish that very thing by numerous
limitations, such as restricting the places at
which liquor is to be sold the hours at
which il is to be sod the versions TO whom
il shall be unlawful TO sell liquor; the
character OF the persons by whom 1T is to be
sold; the not selling on credit; the prohi-
bition as to drinking on the premises the
limiting the amount to be sold TO purchasers;
the written application signed 10y each pur-
oboser. and other restrictions that need not
be mentioned here.
II appears upon the face of the Dispensary
Act, as il stands upon the statute book that
The purpose and primary object Of those who
passstl IL was to diminished the sale aud
consumption of liquor, aud TO decrease the
evils which are believed to result from the