The Lexington dispatch. [volume] (Lexington, South Carolina) 1870-1917, 1894-05-16
A Layman's Opinion Of the Decision

To the Editor Of the Dispatch:
Well. the Supreme Court has at las,
! handed down its long looked for decision
on the Dlspensary Act. and it has declared
! the same to be unconstitutional except in
reference 10 one certain clause.
After reading the majority opinion care
| fully, and then comparing with the dissent
ing opinion of Associate Pope, [ am con
strained to think that the main parts OF the
said Act are in violation OF our fundamen-
tai law.
In accordance With this Act the State
embarked upon n commercial enterprise to
the entire exclusion of its citizens. Trade,
We know, Is not, nor can be regarded as
one of the functions Of Government. The
very essence of civil government is to pro-
tect it's citizens and not to create monop-
oily in any certain branch of trade. Some
say that the Act was passed solely as O po
lice measure and was intended only to con-
troll the sale of liquors. This argument, in
my estimation, is very weak inasmuch as
annexed thereto Therefore l must say
fundamental law.
In the second place have always con-
tended that State could not prohibit its
railroads from carrying to any point within
its borders and delivering to consiRnees.
unbroken packages. This the Dispensary
Act trieito do.
N not so sure, as Justice McIver is.
that the right to traffic IN spurious liquors
is an inalienable right guaranteed under
he constitution; it, so then our laws for
some time have been in conflict with our
inalienable rights, inasmuch as the light
to sell liquor was confined to persons with
in an incorporated town.
Associate Pope seems to think that the
Act was intended solely as police resula-
tion in regard to liquors; cannot wholly
agree with him, for, if SO, why was not the
liquor so d at bare cost?
II the liquor had been sold at cost and
the Act had onl regulated the sale and not
tried to interrupt the transportation, with
in the borders of the State, then I would
have upheld the Act as not violating our
constitution.
Speculation is now rife as to twhere we
are at, 4" in regard to liquor laws since the
decision of the courts. Some say We have
free liquor; some say we have absolute pro-
hlbition, &c. I have read various opinions
on the subject, none of which express my
views exactly. For sometime failed in
arriving at conclusion, and it seems that
our best lawyers and authorities materially
differ on this point. Section 1871 of our
General Statutes says: 'No license for the
sale of spurious or intoxicating liquors
shall be granted in South Carolina outside
of incorporated cities, towns and villages
Of this State; and it shall be unlawful for
any person or persons to sell such liquors
without license so to do" That means
prohibition so far as the country people are
concerned.
Now, the Dispensary Act did not, Of
course, repeal that section, as it was not
Inconsistent Herewith" Now read the
valid part of the Dispensary Act as left by
the Supreme Court: Section 6. No Ii
cense for the sale of spirituous liquors now
authorized to be granted by municipal
authorities shall be OF any force of effec
after the 30th day of June, 1o93.'
That means total prohibition as far as I
can see. Therefore We now have absolute
prohibition under those two sections OF
valid law, with the penalty attached as
under section 1874 General Statutes.
1t was only The ''Dispensary" feature OF
the Act that was sat down upon by the
Court and not the prohibitory or license
feature, and because par S of an Act are de-
clared void, that does not invalldate the re-
mainder.
So think those city councils who have
granted licenses lately for the sale OF
liquors are ''playing with fire" that is ifthe
Executive power picks up where the courts
left of. W. H. H.
Caughmans, S. c., April %, 1894.