The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1893-06-14
LOCAL NE w 81.
COUNTY CORRESPONDENCE.
The Supreme Courts Decision in the
Chester Cases,

EDITORS INTELL1GENCER: have just
read Mr.. Watsons communication Oh the
Dispensary Act, recently published in the
Anderson newspapers, in which he ad-
vises the freehold voters not to sign peti.
tions for the establishment of County Dis.
pensaries. because, if I understand him, it
Is the only mode left to defeat the object
of the Act He commences by saying,
ut is now too late to discuss the law it.
self, as it has been declared constitution
al" presume be refers to the recent de-
cision OF the State Supreme Court in the
Chester cases, and has fallen into an error
as to the extent of that decision, which, it
seems, is shared by large numbe of the
people of the State, who have either not
read it closely, or perhaps have not read 1t
at all. getting their impressions from mere
rumor.
l do not understand these cases as decid.
ing anything more than that the Act
originated in the House, was duly passed
and ratified by the Legislature in its pres.
ent form, that its title is without legal
objection, and that it is valid Act for the
purpose of limiting retail licenses, granted
in January last for six months. The re-
lators, or plaintiffs, had complained that
the Town Council of Chester had limited
their licenses to period of six months
(3lst of June) under the DIspensary Act,
when uoder the local act, applicable to
Chester, it should have been for twelve
months, and proceeded to assail the for
mer as unconstitutional, null and void,
upon several grounds. The Court held
that the Legislature had the power to re.
strict or limit the license period, (the point
to be decided) and declined to consider
any of the constitutional objections raised,
except those impeaching the passage and
ratification of the Act, as enrolled and
published, and its titles, which affected its
validity for any purpose. All others were
expressly reserved, and hence, the more
grave and serious objections of the con-
stitutional power of the Legislature to
create in the State monopoly of purely
mercantile business, to the exclusion of
it's citizens, aud to appropriate public
moneys for the purpose, are still open
questions, ss well as it's power to restrict
the transportation OF goods (liquors) into
and out of the State. Any interested
party may STILL In proper case, raise any
Que or all of these objections, or others of 9
kindred nature, to the constitutionality of
the Act, without being hindered or con-
cluded by the decision in the Chester
cases.
While, therefore, join Mr.. Watson in
the hope that our freehold voters will not
sign these petitions for the establishment
Of Dispensaries, do 80 froH different
standpoint and because I regard such
legislation as perversion Of the legitimate
ohiscts of Government under our republi.
can institutions, And if I shall succeed
in correcting the impression, prevailing
to some extent, that 'the law has been de-
clared con stitutional" for all purposes en-
braced in it, and thereby deter some from
signing petitions because they think We are
to have these Dispensaries at all events, I
will have accomplished all I have aimed at
by this short aud hasty communication.
B. F. WHITNER.