The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1894-05-09

should be suppressed. We favor prohibition
as the law stands, and believe that under
pr~esentsconditions, the effort should be made
to enforce it.
THE QUESTION SETTLED.
The Supreme Court ON yesterday rendered
its decision in the test case brought up before
it by the action of the City Council Of Flor
ence in granting licenses for the sale Of
liquor.
At 2 O'Clock. the following special was
received
Speculto The Watchman and South7on.
COLUMBIA, May 8, l BOP. N.
The Supreme Court decided to-day in the
| Florence case that under the law as it. now
stands, there is no authority invested with
the power to graft licenses for the sale
| of spurious liquors within the limits Of this
! State. and hence the action Of the City
Conneifin grenting licenses would be ultra
vtres, and ABSOLUTELY void. The Injunction is
granted, and the Court holds that parties
selling without license may be prosecuted
under State or municipal laws, aud that
Brnnson be remauded for trial
The Court is unanimous.
A. KoHN,
News & Courier Bureau.
The information that the Court had declar-
ed a state Of prohibition to exist did not create
much surprise at this Was the opinion OF q
number of the best informed lawyers.
A little later in the afternoon the following
was received:
Special to Waterman and Southron-
Governor Tillman and others all hold that the
decision means strict prohibition, with ample
provision for penalties. Gov. Tillman says
he sees no way in which he can cooperate 10
enforcing prohibition, and expects town au-
thorities to do so and will not now consider
future emergencies IN. l. G. Bureau By A.. K.
Neither vas this a surprise, as Gov. Till
man has ever since the first decision Of the
Cour, occupied a hauds-of position, and APP
pears determined to maintain it.
The decision of the court was as follows:
The State of South Carolina,
In the Supreme Court,
April Term, 1894.
J. l.. Barringer, ct al, vs.. The City Coon-
Gil of Florence, ex parte J. Ellis Bruoson.
These two cases instituted in the original
jurisdiction of this court being of a kindred
nature, though notinvolying the sameqaestions
weresheard and will be considered together.
The FIRST is a case asking for an Injunction
to restrain the city council of Florence from
granting licenses for the sale of spirltuons
LIQUORS, upon the ground that there is now
no law authorizing the granting OF such
licenses and therefore that threatened action
of said city council In this respect is ultra
wires.
The secondis q case in which the petitioner
applies, under a writ of habeas7 corpus, here
tofore issued for his discharge from custody,
in which be is held under a warrant issued
by the may or of the city of Florence who is
invested by the charter Of said city will all
the powers of a trial justice, charging the
petitioner with selling spirituous liquors
without a ~liceuse, in violation of an ordl-
nance of the city, as we'll as In violation OF
the laws of the State. lnasmuch rs one OF
these cases involves the liberty Of the citi-
zens this court deems it to be It's duty to
render as prompt u decision as possible. The
court will, therefore, proceed simply 10 decide
the questions presented 10 these cases, with
out undertaking now to give the reasons for
the conclusions which will, however, be here
after done in an opinion which will De
prepared and fled as soon as practicable.
The court decides that under the law as 1t
now stands, there is no authority invested
with the powe 10 Grant licenses for the sale
of spirituous liquors within the limits of this
State, and hence the action of the city coun-
ell of Florence in granting such licenses
would be ultra wires and absolutely void, and
therefore, the injunction, as asked for, oy the
petitioners, ia the case FIRST named must be
granted.
In the secor. case the petitioner moves for
his discbs:se from custody upon the ground
that there is now no law f%orbidding the sale OF
spirituous liquors within the limits OF this
State.
This court decides that this is a mistaken
view of the law. On the contrary we hold
that the act of 1892, commonly called the
dispensary act, having been declared uncon-
stitutional in all its provisions, except mat
forbidding the granting OF licenses to sell
spirituous liquors, after the day therein named
the repeating clauses of that act fall, and
must be regarded as if never enacted, and
hence the previous law forbidding the sale OF
spirituous liquors without a license remains OF
force, under which the petitioner may law
fully be Indicted. In addition 20 this be may
also be proceeded against for a violation OF
the ordinance of the city Of Florence mention
ed ia the warrant under which he has been
arrested and is now held in custody
1t is, therefore, ordered that, in the case
first named in the title Of this order, an
Injunction do issue as prayed for in this
petition.
1t is further ordered that, in the second
case named in the title hereof, the motion OF
the petitioner for a discharge be refused ana
that the said J. Ellis Brunson be 1emanded to
the custody of the chief of police OF the city
of Florence 10 be by him safely kept until he Is