The Carolina Spartan. [volume] (Spartanburg, S.C.) 1852-1896, 1894-05-16
The Carolina Spartan.
WEDNESDAY, May IL, 1894.
The Supreme Court says it is Pro
hibitiOn.


hibition.
That is the conclusion OF the Supreme
Court on the liquor question.
They decide that no city has right
to issue licenses and anybody who sells
whiskey can be proceeded against un>
der the laws in force previous to 1892.
The municipalities having no power to
grant licenses it appears to be the idea
of the court that the same penalty
would attach to dealers in whiskey now
as did to violator Of the license laws
in force previous to 1892.
Contrary to general expectation the
Supreme Court had not a word to say
about the law Of 1898. They completely
ignored it and that law is still a sub
ject OF controversy and may laad to
further complications in the situation.
There was large crowd present in the
Supreme Court room when the Judges
took their seats.
Justice McIver as soon as court was
convened commenced the reading OF
the decision which is as follows:
The State Of South Carolina,
In the Supreme Court.
April Term, 1894.
j. L. Barringsr, ct al, VI. The City
Council Of Florence, ex parte, J. Ellis
Brunson
The,A Two cases instituted In the
original jurisdiction Of this court being
OF a kindred nature, though not invol-
wing the same questions were heard and
will be considered together.
The first is case asking for an in
junction to restrain the city counsil OF
Florence from granting licensesfor the
sale OF spirituous liquors, upon the
ground that there Is now no law an-
thorizing the granting OF such licenses,
and therefore that threatened action OF
said city council in this respect i, ,"ultra-
vires.n
The second is q 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 all the powers Of q trial justice,
charging the petitioner with selling
spirituous liquors without license, In
violation of an ordinance Of the city,
as well as in violation of the laws OF
the State. Inasmuch as one Of these
cases involves the liberty.of the citizens,
this court deems it to be its duty to rem.
der asl prompt q decision as possible.
The court will, therefore, proceed sim
ply to decide the questions presented In
these cases, without undertaking now
to give the reasons for the conclusions
which will, however, be hereafter done
In an opinion which will be prepared
and filed as soon as practicable.
The court decides that under tn, law
as it now stands, there Is NO authority
invested with the power to grant Il
censes for the sale Of spirituous liquors
within the limits of this State, and
hence the action Of the city counsil Of
Florence In granting such licenses would
be ':ultra vires" aid sbselutdy yoiG md
therefore, the injunction, a. asked FOR, by
the petitioners, in the case frst named
must be granted.
In the second case the petitioner
moves for his discharge from custody
upon the ground that there il now nc
law forbidding the sale Of spirisuoul
liquors within the limits Of this state
This court decides that this 10 ara&stA
ken view Of the law. On the cortras!
We hold that the act Of 1899, commonly
called the dispensary act, having beer
declared unconstitutional in all 1t,
provisions, except that forbiddinz thu
granting OF licenses to sell spirisuoul
liquors, after the day therein named
the repeating clauses OF that act fail
and mast be regarded as II never enactee
and hence the previous law forbiddins
the saleof spirituous liquors without q
license remains Of force, under uhicf
the petitioner may lawfully be indicted
In addition to this he may also be pro
ceeded against for violation Of the or.
dinance OF the city Of Florence men
toned in the warrant under which b,
has been arrested and Is now held In
custody.
1t is, therefore, ordered that, In tn,
case first named In the title Of this or
der, an Injunction do issue as prayec
for In this petition.
1t is futher ordered that, In the secont
case named In the title hereof, the mo
tion Of the petitioner for discharge b.
refused; and that the said J. Ellis Brun
son be remanded to the custody Of ths
chief Of police Of the city Of Florence te
be by him safely kept until he Is themes
delivered by due course Of law. Thil
eighth day Of May, 1894.
HEHhY McIvRk,
Chist justice,
We concur 8. McGowAH, AJ
Y. POPE, A, J..
Silas Nicholson, q farmer living In
Jackson county, N. c., near the South
Carolina line Was implicate6 several