The weekly Union times. [volume] (Union C.H., South Carolina) 1871-1894, 1893-07-14
The Dispsnsary Unconstitutional.

forcible and convincing decision, declares
, the appointment of the dispenser illegal.
First, Because the petition of John Buck
ner Floyd for the office Of dispenser is not
| signed by a majority of the freehold voters
| of the town, and his bond is invalid
| Second Because the act Of 24th Decem-
| Der, 1892, in 60 far as it provides for the
| establishment of State and county dispeu-
saries for the sale of intoxicating liquors in
this State is unconstitutional i.
The board, therefore, acted illegally in
granting Floyd his permit.
His bond is signed by two ladies' only
| one, his mother, a married woman, and the
other widow lady, who did not justify and
cannot:
One signature is void, the other not sufi.
cieut, and the principal not worth the bond.
The bond is in fact straw bond.
We are truly sorry that our limited space
will not pcrmitus us to publish the full text
of Judge Hunson's decision on the con-
stitutionality of the dispensary act. for it
does seem 10 us to be q clear aud impartial
result of q deep aad we'll digested research
in case frought with more Importance TO
the people Of South Carolina than any
o!her question they are now considering
We can only give our readers few of
what we conceive to DO the most pointed
and substantial Ioiuts in Judge Hudson's
decision:
Can the act of 24th December, 1892, now
under consideration, be sustained as coming
within the police power Of the State?
Insofar Us it prohibits the manufacture
and sale Of Intoxicating liquors in this State.
it can. This question has long been settled.
| by the courts Of the States Of the Union,
and recently in express terms by our
Supreme Court.
But the vital question is whether it is
constitutional for the Legislature to confer
upon the government Of this State, or any
branch thereof, the exclusive right to trade
in intoxicating liquors and maintain the
same from the treasury of the State? Can
that body divert the taxes of the people
from tho legitimate purposes of government,
and invest the money in the trade and
traffic in intoxicating liquors to the exclu.
sion Of the right of the people to deal there.
in?
There is no warrant in the Constitution
for the creation of so gigantic monopoly
in any private individual or association OF
individuals. The attempt 10 erect such a
monopoly would very Justly alarm and out
rage the people, and would not stand the
/
or corporation, under wholesome rules
and regulations, the exclusive right to sell
intoxicating liquors in the State of South
Carolina would be unconstitutional; not
because such a grant is prohibited expressly
by the Constitution, but because it is against
the .enius and spirit of all free government
and it is in violation of the common law
rights of the people, as handed down TO us
through the Magma Charta Of King John,
and which form the web and woof aud warp
of our fundamental law aud individual
rights. Had the Legislature of Louisiana
conferred upon the slaughter house corpora
;ion Of seventeen individuals the exclusive
right to erect and maintain slaughter houses,
cattle pens, wharves and landings through
out the entire State, instead of the parishes
of Orleans, Jefferson and st. Bernard, the
act could not have been sustained by the
courts under the police power of the State.
TSsa aa1s Ur 9fsp ss e%
unconstitutional, null and void.
Such has been the law of England since |
the argument of the celebrated case of |
monopolies in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, |
reported in Code IL, page "a, and which led |
to the statute of 21st James /, prohibiting |
monopolies, and forming now part of the |
common law Of this State.
Now, can the Legislature of South Caro-
lima confer upon the executive department |
Of the State gov ernment the exclusive right |
10 buy and sell liquors in the State? Can |
it epgraft upon thai, or any other branch Of |
the government, the character of trading |
establishment or mercantile house, and con- |
fer upon 1t the monopoly of the liquor traf. |
nc, or Of any other brauch of commerce? |
The Constitution does not give the power, |
but by necessary implication denies it.
Traffic, commerce, industrial pursuits, the |
acquisition Of property, the rights of thiogs
and Of persons, belong 10 the people as
primordial or inalienabie rights TO secure
and protect the people in these rights is the
province of government. These rights do
not spring from government, but the gov
ernment is created by the people to protect
them in life, liberty, properly aud the pur-
slit Of happiness. The first Article Of our
Constitution contains the Declaration of
Rights.
Section % Of our Declaration Of Rights
is as follows:
Private property shall not he taken or
applied Tor public use, or for the use Of
corporatioes. or for private use, without the
consent OF the or ownera just compensa-
ton being made therefor being
added as to the rights Of way. The closing
section Of the Declaration of Rights is as
follows:
sec. 4i-The enumeration Of rights in
tyis Constitution shall not be construed to
impair or deny others retained by tho peo-
pie, and all powers not herein deiegatsd re-
main tciM tie people,"
\
If The Legislature can confer upon the
government of South Carolina the exclusive
right to sell intoxicating liquors throughout
the State under the implied grant OF the
police power, then certainly it can confer a
like monopoly in the sale of drugs, tobacco. |
commercial fertilizers, powder aud explo.
siVes meats, vegetables, mineral waters
provisions, milk, butter and an indefinite,
number OF articles of lawful trade and n
nerce; all under the plea and pretenoe of
exercising police power over the peonIs
Laws no" exist for REGULATE q the sale of all
Dr. nearly all these articles, and the right 10
nonopolize The sale Of one implies the right
o mohopol;ze the sale Of each and all. This
has never been done by any constitutional