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

1
first case.
, The Attorney General announced
that they would file their printed
briefs and arguments.
Argument Against the Dispensary
Mr.. G. w. Croft, OF Aiken, who re-
presented the city council, opened the
argument against the constitutionality
OF the dispensary law with a detailed
statement of the case from Aiken. He
then argued the law points involved
in the leading feature OF the case-the
question OF stare dccisis:
Before discussing the points raised
we shall contend that the questions in
volved in this appeal are not new ;
they have been already repeatedly de-
cided by this Court, true within short
period-but nevertheless by number
OF decisions commencing with McCol-
Tough VS. Brown, followed by Barring
er VS. tho city council of Florence and
ex parte Brunson, and by the State vs.
O'Donnall We maintain that tho
points now raised are settled, and un-
der the doctrine Of stare decisis should
not be disturbed. The doctrine upon
that subject is thus stated by New
York Courts: "The decisions of this
Court, while uureversed always form
the absolute law of the Court, and en-
ter with very decided effect into the
body of preccdents. They must from
the very nature of the legal systom be
the same to the science of law as q
convincing series OF experiments is to
any other branch of inductive philoso-
ply. They are upon being promul
gated Immediately relied upon as to
their character, either as confirming
an old or forming Il new principle Of
action which perhaps is at once APP
piled to q thousand of cases."
He cited Other authorities on this
line, all the way from Cooley to the
Ohio Courts. He insisted that read
ing Of the Act of 1892 and that OF 1893
will mako it manifest that there is no
| difference whatever between the scope,
design and purpose of the two Acts.
The Act OF 1892 provides that the
Keeping and sale of spirituous, malt
and vinous liquors in the State shall
be regulated and conducted only as
provided in said Act. 1t provides for
the appointment of State commits
sionor State board of control, county
boards OF control county dispensers,
the purchase OF the liquors by tho
State and its distribution among the
county dispensaries, and the division of
the profits between the State, county
and the municipalities and fixes the
maximum profit. Then it directs the
manner Of making application to pur-
chase the liquors and prescribcs the
penalties for violating the terms of
the Act. The Act of 1893 shows in it's
very title that it is the same scheme
as the Act of 1892, indeed it rests upon
| the Act of 1892, and its apparent object
is to make complete the law already
existing, for it is entitled, "An Act to
declare the law in reference to and
! further regulate the use, sale, conSump-
| ton, tran spOrtutiOn and distribution of
alcoholic liquid or liquors within the
State OF South Carolina, and to police
the same" and its terms are in sub
stance identically the Same as the Act
of 1892. 1t provides for tho monopoly
of the liquor business by the State, the
division of the profits between the
State, county and municipalities, pen
aitlcs for the violation Of the Act. The
only practicable difference between
the two Acts is chat by the Act of 1892
the State profit was limited not to ex-
coed 90 per cent, while under tho Act
OF 1893 the profit is unlimited and is
left it seems to the judgment of the
State board of control. The two Acts
boing practically the same we contend
that tho principles announced in the
case Of Mccullough VS. Brown ct al, ap-
ply with the same force and effect to
the Issue now under discussion.
He then took up the relator's excep-
tions. Be grouped these under two
That municipal corporation cannot
set up the plea that the Dispcnsary
Act was in violation of the State and
Federal Constitutions.
Ihis is an amazing proposition. The
very statement of it is repugnant to
reason. To say that a corporation or
its officers, who are attempting to car
| tS n ;nI 4 Il
rives pare of it's revenue, will not be
allowed to protect itself by the Consti
tuition Of the State when its rights are
invaded is so utterly untenablc that it
needs no argument TO refutc such posi-
tion.
1T must also be borne in mind that
the city council are not the actors
but the relatOrs como into Court with
the Dispensary Act and say that we
are county dispensers under this Act,
and that the city of Aiken has passed
an ordinance which conflicts with this
Act. 1t cannot be said that the city is
not interested in having the Act in
question declared unconstitutional, for
the ordinance which the Act comes in
conflict with is revenue ordinance.
from which the city derives q great
part of its income. The reasoning in
the opinion Of the Circuit Court upon
| IlllS pOlHO SccillS 10 us unanSW WCraDlo.
End. The second and real ground of
appeal by the relators is because the
Circuit Judge decided the Dispensary
Act of 1893 was in violation of the State
Constitution.
The theory of the relators in support
of their position as to the constitu-
tionality of the Dispensary Act is that
said Act may be sustained upon two
grounds
1st. That the Legislature las SUI
preme, absolute and uncomfortable
power to pass a law of any character
whatever, unless such Act is expressly
prohibited by the Constitution. That
there are no inalienable rights belong
ing to the people other than those
named in the Constitution itself.
End. That the dispensary law is
merely the proper exercise of the
police power over the liquor traffic.
The tirsS proposition is contradictory
to the Constitution itself. The 1st
section OF Article | of that instrument
!; is styled Declaration of rights, "
clearly meaning that these rights then
belonged to the people and were then
! expressed in SOLEMN form. 1t does not
state that it enumerated all of the
rights of the people, but the language
is such that it clearly intimates that
there were other rights, for it says
"All men are born free and equal, en-
, | 6r,wad hv tboir Cpoufpr with oarto (; =,