Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1894-10-13
TRIUMPH oE rlLLMAN.
South Carolina Supreme Court Decides the
Dispensary Law Valid.


Dispensary Law Valid.
COLUMBIA, s. c., Oct. e.-The dispen-
sary act of 1893 was declared to be con-
stitutional NJ ondny by Justices Gray
and Pope of the supreme court, Chief
Justice McIver dissenting. The case
upon which the decision was rendered
is known as the Aiken case" which
originated in the town council of
Aiken attempting to fine the
local dispensers for selling liquor
without license. The local dispenser
applied to Circuit Judge Aldrich for
an injunction restraining the town
council of Aiken from fining him.
Judge Aldrich on technicality grant
ed the injunction against the town
council of Aiken, but held that the act
of 1898 was null and void, as the SUI
preme court of the state had already
so declared an act passed in 1899 al
most identical in wording and identi-
cal in effect with the act of 1903. An
appeal was taken to the supreme court
from that ruling of Judge Aldrch.
The question as presented to the su-
preme court involved principally two
questions-the decision of the lower
court and the constitutionality of the
act of 1893. Since the rendering of
the decision declaring the act of 1899
unconstitutional the complexion of
the supreme court has been changed.
Justice McGowan has been retired and
Mr.. Eugene b. Gary, formerly lieuten-
| ant governor under Gov. Tillman, has
taken his place.
Justice Gary was known to be ia
vorable to the dispensary law when
he was elected to succeed Justice Nc
| Gowan. Immediately upon his taking
his seat on the bench Gov. Tillman re-
opened the dispensaries throughout
the state. He had closed them i'm
mediately upon the rendering of the
| adverse decision on the act of 1892
| The acts of 1892 and 1893 are identical
in purpose and effect and only differ
| in title and minor provisions.
| Justice Gary writes the decision of
| the court in the Aiken case. The court
| decides that the former decision was
Eot the proper one; that the dispen-
sary law is not unconstitutional, and
that it is proper exercise of the police
| power of the state in controlling the
| liquor traffic.
Justice Pope assents to the opinion
of Justice Gary. Justice McIver dis
sents. He stands by the decision of
the court on the act of 1892 and de-
clares that the state has no right to
engage in any trade. which is what it
does under the dispensary law
Justice Gary argues that the regula-
tion of the manufacture and sale of
Intoxicating liquor comes within the
police power of the state, and that the
dispensary is such a regulation of the
traffic; that there is no inherent right
in any one to sell liquor, and, that be-
ing the case, the state has right to
prohibit the Sd lie altogether or to con-
troll it as it deems best for the general
welfare.
The effect of the decision will be
that Gov. Tillman will now begin an
active warfare against blind tigers"
which have been aourishing without
much molestation since the act was de-
clared uncons'itu tional.
What the saloon men will do is prob
lematical. They have no show of
| fighting the law in the courts, but it is
more than likely that some kind of a
case will be gotten up which will
finally bring the question into the SUI
preme court of the United States.