The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1894-04-25
UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The Dispensary Law So Con.
strued by the Supreme
Court.
On last Thursday, the long looked-for
decision of the State Supreme Court in
the Dispensary case. was filed. The
opinion, delivered by Chief Justice
McIver. aud concurred in by Justice
McGowan, completely upsess the whole
Dispensary business, and as a result all
the dispensaries have been closed and
the employees in Columbia discharged.
Justice Pope fled a dissenting opioion.
Space prevents the publication of both,
but we give the decision Of the Court :
TIE DECISION.
The State Of South Caroliaa-ln the
Supreme Court, November. term.
1893-Charles S. Mccullough and
others, plaintiffs, respondents, VS..
George Just Brown and others, de-
PENDANTS. appellants the State,
appellant. VS. Hentz Jacobs, defeo-
dant, respondent ; the State, appel
lant, VS.. J. G. 81. Troeger, defend
ant, respondent ; the State appellant.
VS.. Thomas Pagan and others,
defendants, respondents; the State,
appellant, VS.. Benjamin David, de-
fendapt, respondent.
opINIoN-MIyER, c. J.
These cases all arise under an Act
entitled San Act to prohibit the manu-
facture and sale of intoxicating liquors
as a beverage within this State, except
as herein provided" approved 24th of
December, 1892, 81 Statutes. 81, and
were, therefore. heard aud will be con-
sidered together. for, while there are
certain subordinate questions presented
in some Of the cases which do not arise
in others, yet they all present the ques-
tion of the constitusionality of the Act.
TO that question as one of o~ver-shadow.
ing importance, We propose first to d.
rect our attention. Before doing so,
however, it may be proper to state that
Just before the commencement Of the
argument the Attorney General, deem
ing it due to the Court so to do,
presented a suggestion in writing call
ing the attention Of the Court to the
fact that at the recent session Of the
General Assembly (1893) another Act
on the same substance had been passed
which might possibly be regarded as
repeating or ~superseding the Act OF
1892, uader which these cases arise. and
if so might deprive the questions pre-
septed in these cases Of any practical
character, leaving them only as specula'
tive questions which the Court might
be willing to hear. Bat as no motion
to dismiss the appeals was made and no
application on the part Of the counsel
for the State to abandon the appeals
upon any such grounds was presented,
this Court will not. of its own motion,
decline to hear the cases. but on the
contrary will assume, for the purpose
Of this discussion, that these cases are
not, in any way affected by the passage
of the Act Of 1898, but do preseu'
practical Questions. which this Court is
bound to decide.
Recurring, then, to the question Of
the conssitutionality Of the Act, it may
be as we'll to say in the outset that We
freely concede that the presumption is
always in favor of the copstitntionalitJ
of an Act of the Legislature aud
hence, IS is said by Shaw, Chief JUS.
tice, in Wellington. petitioner. 16 Pick.
95. referred to with approval by Judge
Cooley in his great work on Coustitu'
sional Limitations at page 1872 of the
second edition (Which it may be we'll te
say here Is the edition referred tt
througbous this opinion , "Wher
Courts are called upon to pronounce the
in%validisy Of aa Act of Legislature
passed with all the forms and cere.
monies requisite to give it the force o.
Law, they will approach the question
With great caution, examine it in every
possible aspect, and ponder upon it as
long as deliberasion and patient atten'
ton can throw any new light on the
subject, and never declare a statute
void unless the nullity and invalidity Of
the Act are placed, in their judgment,
beyond reasonable doubt A reason.
able doubt must be solved in favor o
the Legislative action and the Act bt
sustained. Or as was said BY Mar
shall, C. j., in Fletcher VS.. Pack, {
Csauch, 128. likewise quoted witt
approval! by Judge Cooley in the same
connection: 1.-The question whether {