The weekly Union times. [volume] (Union C.H., South Carolina) 1871-1894, 1893-11-17

On the other hand, the Constitution of
South Carolina bcstows generally log, ,ulivc
p,wer upon the General Assembly with very
few limitations; and therefore, upon IN
issue regarding the constitutionniiy of nm
Act Of tho General Assembly Of tho State,
the qucstio is: elias power to legislatc
upon tho subject matter of tins Act been
withheld by the State Constitution"
On this point have hero m excellent
authority which shall read
"The people of II State, in creating ly
their organic law n Legislative department of
government, confer upon it the whole If
their inherently severe IN nnd uncontrolled
power of lcgis ation, cXccp il - ihr rs they
have delegated this power in respect To ccr-
taln restrictions to the Con rcs4 of tie
United States, anl except also in 80 far n
they contcmpuraneously impose CHI, ,ckS aud
limits upon the legislative authority. Hence
the Legislature of II State may enact any
law (not infringing upon the ether depart
mcnts,) Of any character OF IN any suhjcc'
unless il is prohibited. either IN express
terms or Ivy necessary implication, in she
C,noiii"i on of the United States or of that
ate. In other words, the constitutions
are to be consider cd rs limitations upon the
legislative power Of the State, not rs grants
"i power" (5d Am. and Eng. Encyc. of
law, ESQ.,
IN note TWO TO the ABOVE quotation occurs
III, following:
The distinction between the United
States Constitution and the State Cons tituion
il, that the former confers upon Congress Ger.
tain specified powers only, while ihc inter
confcrs upon the Legislature al ln.!s a.!Yc
power. IN the ono case, the powers Spcc-
hcilly granted can only he exercised in
Tho other, all Legislative powers not pre-
*crihed.' eating People vs.. Fiagg, .!G =.
l., i0i: Page vs. Allen, js Pa. Stat 33s.)
Applying the doctrine just quoted, which
must DO recognized rs sound doctrine. the
unconstitutiunnli,y Of the Dispcnsary Ac'
must be made to appear from some limiia-
ton contained in our State Constitution
itsrif upon the power of the General Assem-
bly, TO enact such q 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 cnnct the Dispcnsary law could be
derived only from its police power there
can be no question that unicr that power II
would have ample authority t. restrict the
sale Of, or the traffic in liquor. Tho State
has frequently done SO in the past by stat
utes in ended to regulate and restrict the
traffic in LIQUOR. wi'ho". question as TO its
right and authority 80 to do.
This Act declares in lis title that such is
its purpose: can Act to prohibit the manu-
facIure and sale" etc except as herein
provided" And is provisions undertake
to accomplish that very thing by numerous
limitations, such as restricting the places ut
which liquor is to hc sold the hours ut
which il is to be So the PERSONS to whom
it shall be unlawful 10 sell liquor; the
character of the persons by whom 1t is to he
sold the not selling credit the rrvhi
4; Arin In
limiting the amount to be sold TO purchasers:
the written application signed by each pur-
chaser, and other restrictions that need not
be mentioned here.
1t appears upon the face Of the DiSpcnsary |
Act, as it stands upon the statute book, that |
The purpose and primary object Of those who
passed it was to diminished the sale AID !
consumption of liquor, aud to decrease the
evils which are believed to result from the |