The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1894-05-02
THE LIQUOR LAW.
Probable Solution Of the Puzzle
About the Status Of Whiskey In
Gnnfk,

About the Status OF Whiskey In
SOnth Carolina.
Editor Press aud Banner:
Just what ia the status of the liquor ques-
tlon, since the decision of the Supreme Court
sou,on
the part of our best legal minds as we'll as
every one else. Believing then that any sug.
gestlons. even on the part OF lay man, Tend.
Ing to elucidate the question at Issue would
not be altogether void of interest TO your
readers, propose 10 give, az briefly and as
clearly as possible, the conclusions to which I
have arrived after considering the question
in all the different phases In which it pre-
sents Itself TO my mind.
In order TO get clear and correct under
standing OF the effects on the liquor question
prominently before our minds the intention
| Of the Legislature in enacting the dspensary
law. Now, what was that intention Un-
questionably II was to place the whole busi.
| ness Of the liquor traffic In the hands of the
State, and by no means to pass a prohib
law. Indeed the chief yes may say the sole
reason which gave rise to the dlspensary
IegIsIatTre csi to p pass prohibtory law. i' u ''
Now 1t Ia substantially held by such emi-
nent jurists as Judge Cody, in bis work on
the Interpretation OF Statutes, bot th OF whom
being accepted by the legal profession as relia.
BILE authority, that when an act Is declared
unconstitutional in Its main features, and
said act which undertakes TO repeal previous
legislation on the subject, with a view to a
more complete carrying out OF the main pur-
pose Of the act and therefore subservient to
such main purpose, become subject to the
same fate and are likewise null and void.
This is In keeping with reason and common
sense and 1 think most lawyers will agree
with me that It Is sound law.
Now, as ] think every one will admit that
the prUhibitory clauses In the dispensary act
are subservient 10 and purely for the purpose
Of more fully carry Ing out the main purpose
Of the act-that prohibition, at all events was
the main purpose has been declared unconsti.
tutional and therefore null and void. II fol.
lows that all prohibitory clauses and every
thing else which is subservient TO the main
purpose OF the act are involved In the same
fate. Nor 10 my mind Is there anything In
the decision OF the Supreme Court inconsist-
ent with this view OF the question.
The Court In declaring that the act Is clear
ly unconstitutional, except In 20 far as IL for
bids the granting OF Licenses to retail spirit
uous liquors beyond the 30th OF June, 1893, I"
did not IN my opinion mean 10 be understood
as deciding that that portion OF the act pro-
hibiting the granting o. licenses beyond the
8Oth Of June, 1893, was still OF force, but SIM
ply that that part OF the act was not In con-
fiict with the constitution-this and nothing
II then the dispensary act, by reason of the
decision or the Supreme Court, ls null and
void In all it's parts, and OF which, as matters
bearing on the liquor question which were Of
force at the time OF the passage OF said act are
revived by that decision and are now OF full
force and effect.
So then IL there be any who fatter them
selves that there ia now no law against selling
spirituous liquors and propose to embark In
the business. / would suggest TO all such that
they had better read chapter SIS Of the Revised
Statutes before proceeding too far.
This chapter confines the sale OF spirituous
or intoxicating liquors to Incorporated cities.
towns aud villages; forbds their sale any
where without license; forblds the granting
clared "dry" by statute. and provides heavy
penalties for the violation OF any Of the pro-
visions OF said chapter. r. E. H.
Abbeville, s. c., May lst, 1894.