The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1894-02-07

The objects of taxation as set forth
in the Constitution by the enumera-
ton of the functions of the Govern
ment are: =
!, The maintenance of the Courts !;
the expenses of the Legislature the
expenses of the executive depart.
ments; the maintenance of the
educational system, Article 10 }
The maintenance of the charitable
and penal institution, Article H.
The maintenance of the militia.
(Article 13.
These constitute the whole scope
of "civil" government in the Constitu-
ton 1t is an affirmative enumera-
ton of power and right, which the
Legislature cannot go beyond. and
add to without constitutional amend
ment. These object of taxation are
those which are usual in other States
in this country, and are set forth as
the bound of the uses of the public
funds in Wayland's Political Economy,
pages 423-43S.
Nowhere, and at no time in con-
stitutional history or in English and
American jurisprudence, is there any
use of taxes for the conduct of trade.
Nowhere are taxes levied for the
purpose of exercise Of the commercial
power, which is, in the political
history of Anglo-Saxon civilization,
distinctively and always matter Of
individual enterprise.
Again, and more particularly, the
State Legislature cannot divert public
funds by making advances to the
county dispenser to bu and sell
liquors, ssuch advantages to be re-
garded as loans, to be refunded out
of the profits" (See Section Is.
Dispensary Act And this is an
unconstitutional diversion of public
funds. Feldmann VS. City Council,
% S. C., 62.6S, Mauldin vs. City
Council, 80 5. g., "a
In Feldmann VS. City Council our
Court held it was ali unconstitutional
diversion ofpublic funds "to loan"
public money to the citizen to build a
shelter for his family in the burnt
districts Of Charleston, even if the
..loan" was secured by mortgage of
real estate improved. Here forticri,
is plainly an unconstitutional diver
sion of public funds of the State,
raised by taxes, to advance them, and
what they purchase as "loans" to
dispensers, without security, or even
for the State herself, through her
agents, to apply the public funds to
purchase intoxicating liquor to sell
again to the individual private citi-
zen-a purpose which is surely no.
public purpose. Mauldin VS.
Greenville, 80 S. G. "a
This directly concerns the tax
payer, copartner as to the assets of
the political copartership. and liable.
with his property, for the debts of
the State
In addition to this, by Article 10,
constitution Of South Carolina, the
General Assembly is forbidden to
create any further debt or obligation
by loan of the credit Of the State, OF
otherwise, except for the "ordinary
and current business of the State .
And we submit, under the consti.
tutioual principles we have above set
forth, that it is not, and never was,
the "ordinary and current business OF
the State" to engage in trade which
is not function of "civil govern.
ment"
PROPOSITION THIRD.
The police power of ehe State. en- ats
largest entent does not authorize a State
itself to engage 4" business
In this argument our position must
not be misunderstood as to the extent
of the police power
We admit that the State, can, in
the exercise of the police, power,
put any restriction upon the indi'
viduai in the sale or use of intoxica-
ting liquors We admit also, that
the State can,in the fullest exercise OF
the police power, absolutely prohibit
the manufacture, sale or existence Of
intoxicating liquors within her terri
tory. This police power Of the State
is system of restrictions on indl.
vidual rights and on property owned
by individuals. 1t is founded on the
maxim "Sic utere fuo ut non laedas
alieno," that the individual shall not
use his own so as to injure another.
For the health, morals and welfare
of the power is supreme 1t is salus
populi. But we contend that when
the State has restricted the individual