The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1894-05-16
The LAW DtFINAD.
THESUPREME COURT SAYS PROHl6!-
TON !SlN FORCE.

The City Council Of F,orerce Restrained
from Issuipg Licenses ard the Hsbess
co-nns Proceedings Dlsm!sseo-The Sa-
loon People in 3 Bad Fix.
COLUMBIA. S. c., Nay 9.-Almost in
the twinkliDg Of an eye yesterday the
liquor situation went from one extreme
to the other, from free liquor to aoso-
Ilte prohibition. For the nrst time IL
history, perhaps, a State has been car
ried for the cause Of prohibition Id less
than three minutes, and by an unpre-
cedented accident the prohibltlo1lsts
Of South Carolina have obtained their
hearts content. By this accident OF
the law south Carolina is found today
with a prohibition law forbldd!ng the
sale of l!ouor absolutely, and proVldlug
penalties for the violation OF the law,
which, if properly applied, will pre-
duce prohibition.
Up to II o'clock yesterday the liquor
men were handling liquors ID tnelr Sd
looms without paying any license ana
without any knowledge as to whether
there was in the distance any ROAD 70
the traffic or not. Eleven months ago
hey were selling liquor under license
law of over ten years standing. Tnea
came along the dispensary system for
the control of the liquor traffic, and
soon came with it the reign OF tne
blind tiger system. This kept up until
three weeks ago when another great
change came. The dispensary law
went slimmerlng under the decision
of the Supreme Court. The blind tlser
died natural death and departed from
the soil of South Carolina and the
reign of the free liquor system began.
The life of this latter system, as lar as
the law is concerned, has been out
Eeesins. Now the final extreme has
been reached. The changes have been
numerous, sudden and unexpected.
The law of the land, rs declared oy
the highest tribunal, provides tnaG
there shall be no sale of liquor, and
that If any man sells liquor contrary
to that provision he shall be punished
Just the same as if he had violated the
license law of 1880. AS to who is going
to enforce this new and accidental law
lemains to be seen. 1t appears TO oe
the duty of the sheriffs, trial Justices
and their constsbles and the police OF
the municipalities to enforce the law,
and no doubt it will be done. Its a
State law, too, and if. Governor Eli
man took as much interest ID IL as ne
did in his dIspensary law he Will very
likely have hand in this. The luol-
cations are, however, that the real en
forcement of the law will be left to the
prohibit.onists, and the various city
and town governments in the State. 1t
is certainly a novel condition OF at
fairs, and the people will not yet have
time to realize that they are under the
rule of prohibition. The liquor men
all say that they cannot do anything
until they see what the decision ls, out
they must obey the.law and close up
their places.
All of the saloons in Columbia re-
maineG vide open up to the usual clos
Ing hour last night, and there were no
elements of the new system Of prohi-
bition to be observed, but the change
Will come later. A member OF tne
State prohibition executive committee
stated yesterday that If no one else ST
tempted to proceed against the saloon
keepers the prohibitionsls would act
N cay or Two.
The opirion of all leading attorneys
is that the law, as It was declared oy
the Supreme Court yesterday, Weans
that no liquor shall be sold within the
State; that the clause of the old license
law which gives the right to issue IL
censes has alone been knocked out,
and that all other clauses OF thls IL
cense laW stand. In consequence all
the penalties, ETC., provided 1or selling
liauor without a license apply now 70
the sale of liquor in any manner.
This gives South Carolina the dis
tinction of having the only prohibition
law ever ccncocted, perhaps which has
no regulations about bringing hquor
into the State, no provision for the sale
of Whiskey as medicine. and all the
other features usually embraced IL
prohibition law. It is a noticeable
fact that Justice Pope concurred IN the
decision OF the court. The court, When
it says what it does in its decision, as,
sunes that the dispensary law OF 1888
is as dead as mackerel, aud so con-
si6ers It..
Yesterday morning wheE the hour OF
II chimed, the people who were expect
ing the announcement Of the courts
decision in the Florence cases began to
get into the court room as rapidly as
possible. The justices entered prompt
", and the Chief Justice did not wait
for the spectators to get into the room
before he said: "The court will an
nounce its decision in the two Florence
cases heard yesterday which decision
will apply to both cases, they beng
heard together. The court thus
promptly announces its decision be-
cause the liberty Of the citizen IS ln-
Yolqed." The Chief Justice then open
ed a folded paper he had in his hand,
and read the decision as follows:
The State of South Carolina. In the
Supreme Court. April term, 1884,
J. L. BarriDger ct. al VS.. The City
Council of Florence, ex parte. J.Eliis
BrunSon.
These two cases instituted in the
original jurisdiction Of this court being
of a kindred nature, though not IT,
vOlYisg the same questions we're heard
and viii be considered together. The
first is case asking for an Injunction
to restrain the city council of Florence
from granting licenses for the sale of
spirituous liquors, upon the ground
that there is no law now authorizing the
granting of such licenses, and there
fore that threatened action of said city
council in this respect is ultra wires.
The second is case in which the
petitioner applies, under writ Of
habeas corpus, heretofore issued for his
discharge from custody in which he is
held under a warrant issued by the
mayor OF the city of Florence, who is
invested by the charter Of said city
with ali the powers of tlial justice,
charging the petitioner with selling
spirituous liquors without license, iu
violation Of an ordinance Of the city,
&c yell as in violation Of The laws of