The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1894-04-25

ed Of any instance in which the
constitutiopality of the Acts establish
ing either of these institutions was
ever brought TO the test of Judicial de-
cision, and therefore they can form no
precedent for our guidance In this case:
In the third place the establishment of
a bank may be and has been most ably
defended upon the ground that such au
institution is necessary to the proper
control and management of the fiscal
affairs of the Government, aud is
therefore a proper governmental 'nstra-
mentality, though we must not be un'
derstood as endorsing the proposition
thus ably defended, for that question is
not now before US, and we do not pro.
pose now to intimate any opinion upon
the subject. AS to the College, We do
not regard that institution in any
proper sense of the term as a business.
certainly not on a trade, and there is no
analogy whatever to the business Of
buying aud selling intoxicating liquors.
or any other article Of commerce. And
as to the business of school teaching, if
such an occupation can be character
lied as a business. in the sense Of
which that term is used in this opinion.
the very fact that the trainers of the
present Constitution saw fit to incor.
porate 10 the present Constitution an
express mandate requiring the estab-
lishment Of public schools, is not only
destructive Of any argument drawn
from analogy as to the power of the
State to engage in any business, but
also warrants the inference that without
such express mandate the State would
rot have the power to engage io such
so-called business.
Finally it seems to It's that the
question as to the right Of the State to
engage in any trade or business for the
purpose of gain has been practically
determined adversely to such right in
the recent case of Mauldin VS. Green.
vile, 80 S. c., l. There one of the
questions raised was as to thu power Of
the city council to purchase and bold
an electric light plant for the purpose
Of lighting the streets and public
buildings aud Offices of the city, and
also for the purpose of furnishing
lights to the people at proper charges
therefor. The Court held that while
the city council was invested with
power to provide for lighting the streets
and public buildings in the manner
proposed, yet they had no power to
engage in the business Of furnishing
lights to provide individuals in their
residences or places of business, for the
reason, as it was poiotedly expressed
by MIR. Justice MCGOWAN in delivering
the opinion of the Court: LAS We
understand it all the powers given to
the city council were for the sole and
exclusive purpose of government, and
not to enter into private business of any
kind outside of the scope of the city
government" And this was said,
although the charter of the city, the
Constitution, SO to speak, conferred
upon the city council the broadcast and
most extensive powers for the good
government Of the city. So here We
may say that the Legislative power con
ferred upon the General Assembly by
the Constitution of the State was given
to them for the sole and exclusive pur-
pose Of government, and not to enter
into private business of any kind out
side of the scope Of the State Govern
ment.''
Although the counsel 70. appellant
very properly did DOT rely upon the case
of the State ex rel Hoover vs.. the
Town Council of Chester, II S. T..
752. as any authority whatever upon
the questions presented in the present
case. yet it may not be amiss for US to
say that the questions here presented
we're not there decided or considered,
for the obvious reason that they we're
not necessary to the decision Of that
case, and therefore. under the we'll set
tied rule Cooley Oh Cons Lin 1852
that a Court will oct and ought not
to pass upon a constitutional question
and declare a statute to be invalid un-
less a decision upon that very point be-
comes necessary to the determination Of
the cause. Hence 10 the Chester case
the Court did not feel at liberty to con-
slider the general question Of the con-
s%.itutionality Of the Dispeosary Act aud,
on the contrary. carefully guarded
against even an intimation Of opinion
as to the general question. Now. how
ever. the question is squarely presented
aud has been most fully and ably
argued on both sides, and we are com
PEELED tc meet it. After the fullest and
most careful aud deliberate copsidera-
ton we feel constrained to say that the
~ =, oioorIv upaooott,tiopa1 ovoopt