Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-04-20
THE DISPENSARYACT
Palmetto Liquor Law Duly Declared
Unconstitutional.
GENERAL CONDEMNATION
rbc Opinion Sweeping on All Essential
Points, and No Appeal Lies
10 Uncle Sam.

was to-day rendered in the composite case
originating In Darlington county To test
the constitutionality Of the dispensary
law and appealed to the Supreme Court
by the State. and several minor cases.
likewise appealed. Chief-Justice Newer
end Asaociate-Justice MCGOWAN filed opin-
ions affirming Judge Hudson's decisions
that the law Is unconstitutional, because
it creates monopoly for the state. Jus
ticc Pope filed a dissenting opinion az
drming the Constitutionalty OF the law.
4 VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENT.
The decision Is a voluminous document.
and reporters have been bus'ly engaged
al day with typewriters making copies
Of it. Up to this hour the copy Il not
all in at the newspaper offices. The opin-
ION IS By Chicf-Justice McIver, concurred
IN by Associate-Justicc MCGOWAN, jus
Sec Pope dissenting. and virtually de-
clnres the dispcnsary law unconstitu-
tioral In every particular. save that sec
don forbiddlng the sale Of liquors aft"r
juno 30. 1873. The Court holds that the
state has a right 90 absolutely prohinlt
The sale OF Intoxicating liquor. but GENE"
rowcr. 10 assume the conduct and control
- tho traffic iu any manner. II holds
that the sale Of liquors not being inirinsi-
callv unlawful. the state has no fiHhl 10
treat IL i'm "a manner different from that
i'm which II treats any oihrr ia"iul pus'-
ness. and that as II would nave no au-
thoritv to dobgr any class OF us c"iz'hS
from following any other laWiul business
aud drVolVe IT'S CondUct upon the STATE.
similarly it has no such Ilshl WI" r'bdiu
10 the liquor business.
SWEEPING AND CONSERVATORY.
The opinion covers every conceiVabi
aspect of the case, anu ~ s'hrralIS
syecping and condemnatory of the liquor
law.
Associatc-Justice Pope in an equally
lengthy dissenting opinion. maintains tn
constitutionaIity 81 the disprnsary act
based on the right to exercise the poiici
mower. and holds that all rights not re-
served to the people may, IN their me
rest, he exercised Wy the Legislature. IL
inycighs particularly against the dlsposi-
ton of the judiciary t. pass neeiiessiy
upon the domain Of the legislative Dranch
Of the government
WHAT TILLMAN SAYS.
COLUMBIA. 5. c.. April l&-Governor
Tillman would only say this much about
the decision: Il haven't read II, and
don't know its meaning yet | have
tried t. enforce the law because 1t was
a law. The action Of the Court makes
il incumbent on me 20 take such steps
a. my judgment will dictate to protect
the interests of the state and the people.
The latter is not finished. | Will obey the
court for the present. and appeal 10 the
supreme Court-the people
NTI-TILLMANITES JUBILANT.
COLUMBIA, :. G., April 1.-THE oppo-
nents Of the administration are jubhant
over the decision Of the supreme Court
declaring The dieponsary-law unconstn-
tional The whiskcy men are more than
inhilant over the decision. ana whskey
is being openly sold in many places II
South Carolina tonight.
The friends of tn dispensary-laW al
not disheartencd, however Despite tn
decision Of the court. they believe the
law constitutional, and believe that 1t VIII
yet triumph.
Governor Tillman is known to be a man
of many resources. and his opponents DO
not believe he viii yield and close the
dispensarics.
SUPREME COURT PERSONNEL.
The supreme court is composed of
CbieC-Justice Newer and AssOciatc-Jus-
tic. MCGOWAN. who belong TO the faction
Of the Democratic party opposed to the
Governor. and AssOciate-Justice rope
who filed the dissenting opinion. who Is
Il member OF the faction supporting the
Governor Justice McGOwan's term eX-
pircs in July OF this year, when he viii
be succeeded by l.. u. Gary, who IS
member Of the faction supporting the
Governor.
DISPENSARY-LAW HISTORY.
The first dispensary-law was passed IL
December. 1Sg2. went into effect on July
/. 1855. and was repealed in December
1893. by a new dispcnsary act. which went
into effect in January, 1874. The cases Ill
which the decision OF tho Supreme Court
was rendered to-day worr brought under
tho old law. Tnlman can continue thc
operati0n of the dspensary, claiming thai
fine new Law has not been declared uncon-
stitutional. though its principle Is practi-
cailv the same a. that Of the old law
This would nccessitate new SUIT. BE
fore IL could get NJ 10 the Supreme court
tber. would TO- a change in the personnel
Of IA. latter. and different result might
be Forthcoming.
40 APPEAL
WASHINGTON, u. G., April l1-The
decision Of tho supreme Court OF South