The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1894-09-18

expressly declared in the Constitution
What are these rights? He says OF
this subject that it was nowhere stated
with greater precision than by Chic
Justice McIver in the case of McCol
Tough VS. Brown. Other strong au
thorities were given on this line.
1t is next attempted to justify thu
Dispensary Act by holding that it il
the exercise of the police power ovei
the whislSey traffic. 1t is admitted tha
the State may through proper legisla
tion police the whiskey traffic, ant
may go to the extent Of prohibiting
the sale of liquors within the State
but the Legislature cannot under the
guise of exercising its police power
pass an unconstitutional law.
He quoted Cooley and others on the
police powor and argued that the law
prescribes no rules of good manners OF
nothing else for regulating the inter
course of citizen with citizen, but tc
the contrary 1T is q system of trade by
which the liquor traffic is monopolized
by the State, which defines how the
| business shall be carried on and q di.
vision Of the profts-with fines, penal.
tics and forfeituros which are directed
not to regulate the intercourse of citi-
zen with citizen-but to make secure
the monopoly of the business in the
| n"hoo vi ohC oGitGe, GllaG tne pfOnt Us
from the traffic might be made larger
The Act does not prohibit the citizen
from carrying on the liquor traffic be-
cause the business is unlawful, but its
penalties are declared simply for the
purpose OF deterring others from en-
| gaging in legal trade which the
State desires to mOnopoliZe. That the
sale of liquor is a legitimate subject of
| commerce. Sec Chief Justice McIver's
opinion in the case of Mccullough VS.
| Brown ct al, page 469, and the case
cited.
He dealt with the monopoly oucs.
tion at somo length and said among
| other points:
The police power can only be resort
cd to FOR the government and control
OF the people of the State, and cannot
with any prOpriety be appealed to for
the purpose of controlling the action
OF the State itself, and as the State
can only act through it's authorized Of
ilccrs or agents the police power can
not be resorted to for the purpose of
controlling such officers and agents, #
Tor no other reason, because it is who'll
~ Unnecessary, as the State has ample
means of controlling its own officials
without resorting to the underlined,
and therefore dangerous power known
as the "potcc power"
we find elsewhere that the Supreme
Court OF other States in passing upon
similar statutes as the Dispensary Act
have declared such Acts invasion of
tho inalienablc rights of the citizen,
and therefore void. In the case OF
Herman vs. the State, s Ind. 545, the
supreme Court in passing upon tho
constitutionality of an Act of the Leg
lslature OF Indiana, which provided
n of
featuring whiskey, ale. porter and
beer, then carried on in that State,
should cease except any person might
manufacture the same and sell to the
Government, if the Government should
conclude to buy of such person, but
not otherwise.
On this line he spoke for ten minutes
at least. After going over the other
main points in the argument he took
up the exceptions of the respondents
ana first discussed the writ of prohibi-
tion.
VIOLATES THE UNITED STATES CON-
STITUTION.
The claim that the Dispcnsary Act
violates Section 3 of Article /, of the
Constitution of the United States he
argued on familiar grounds, and said
that the Dispensary Act violates said
amendment of the Constitution of the
United States. in that Section 2l au-
thorizes searches of hotels, either in
day or night time, without warrant
Section % prohibits any suit for
damages for seizure and detention of
any liquors under the Act, thus shield
ing an officer for making seizure that
might turn out illegal.
Section a allows all places to he
searched upon q warrant either in the
hnc
citizens residence to be searched at
any unreasonable hour.
Section 20 permits the seizure of tho
| citizens property in the hands of a
common carrier and to detain it with
out warrant on suspicion merely for
| twenty-four hours.
Section 48 shields the officer from all
suits for damage to persons or property
In the discharge of any duty under the
Act, thus placing the officer above the
law, and encouraging unlawful seizures
and searches and giving free liccnse
for the oppression of the citizen.
The argument was closed with re-
view of the Federal issues and the
right OF the city to license.
Mr.. Croft in his eXtemporaneous az
gument forcibly said that the practi-
cal language of the Legislature was
that profit was to be made out of the
dispensary law. In an Act it was de-
clared that the profits from the dis
pensary should go to pay the debt OF
Clarendon County. There could be nc
doubt as to the idea of the act. There
is no contention that the Act of 1893 is
different from that of 1892. The only
difference is in the dates. The only
possible reason for another decision
was the change of tho Court.
AT the c0ncinsion Of Mr.. Croft's ar.
gument Chief Justice McIver said that
he supposed that the real object of the
case was to determine the constitu
tionality of the Act Of 1893. He said
that there was well defined principle
OF law, which was not generally known
that a State. Court (when a case indi
rectly bringing up aquestion involving
the validity of an act passed by the
State Legislature a coordinate
branch of the State Government-was
presented) should evade deciding the
validity Of the law, deciding tho case
on any minor point that would serve
the purpose ofgiving decision. This
was said not to indicate any decision OF
opinion, but to call attention to two
points in Mr.. Croft's argument which
were not connected with the constitu
! tionality of the law.
Mr.. Croft will probably withdraw
the two points. Mr.. CrQft's argumen
was considered very able by all wht
heard it.
Col. IL. w. Boyd for the State.
n1