The weekly Union times. [volume] (Union C.H., South Carolina) 1871-1894, 1894-05-11
IT'S PROHIBITION.

1T Is PROHIBITION
That is the conclusion Of the Supreme
Court on the liquor Question
they decide that no city has q right to
issue licenses and anybody who sells wbis-
key can be proceeded against under the
laws ia force previous TO 1892 The munich
palities having no power TO grant Licenses it
appears to be the idea of the court that the
same penalty wculd attach TO dealers in
vhiskey now as did TO viulator of the license
Naws In force previous to 1892.
Contrary TO general expectation the Su-
preme Court had not word to say about the
law of 1898. They completely Ignored it.
and that law is still subject of controversy
aud may lead to further complications in the
situation. There was large crowd present
In the Supreme Court room when tho judges
took their seats.
Justice McIver as soon as court was con-
vened commenced the reading of the decision
which is rs follows:
The State Of South Carolina,
In the Supreme Court,
April Term, 1894.
y. L. Barrlnger, ct al, VS.. The City Council
OF Florence, ex partc, j. Ellis Brunson.
These two cases Instituted in the original
Jurisdictions of this court being of a kindred
nature, though not involving the same aues-
tions were heard and will DC considered to-
gether.
The first is case asking for an iniuuc-
tion to restrain the city council of Florence
from granting licenses for the sale of spirit.
uous 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.
Hhn ,po
tfoner applies, under n writ Of habeas cor
pus, heretofore issued for his discharge
from custody, in which he is held under a
warrant issued by the mayor Of tho city of
Florence, who is invested by the charter Of
SAID CITY with all the powers of n trial ius-
hce, charging the petitioner with selling
spiri,uous liquors without q license. in viola.
tion of an ordinance of the CITY. as well as
IN violation Of the laws Of the State. Ipas-
much rs one of these cases involves the
liberty of the citizen this court deems il to
pe It's duty to render as prompt decision IA
possioie' Inc count WILL therefore, proceed
simply 10 decide the questions presented in
these cases, without undertaking now to
give the reasons for the conclusions which
VIII, however, be hereafter done in an opin-
Ion which will be prepared and filed Us soon
as practicable.
The court decides that under the law as il
now stands, there is no authority invested
with the power 20 graut licenses for the sale
OF spirituous liquors within the limits Of
this State, and hence the action of the city
council Of Florence in granting such licenses
would be ultra Tir"s AMI absolutely void,
ana therefore, the injunction, as asked for
by the petitioners in the case first name
case must be granted
In The second case the petitioner moves
for his discharge from custody W on the
ground that there is now no law forbidding
the sale of spiri,uous liquors within the
limits of this State
1h's court decides that this is n mistaken
view OF the law. On the contrary We holI
That The act Of ls"2. commonly called the
diSpensary act, having been declared uncon.
s'h&;iVHal in al its provisions except that
foroldiing the granting Of licenses to sell
sthhunus liquors. after The day therein
\ haned, the repeating clauses o: that act fall.
&d must be regarded as if never enacted
hence the previous law fcrbidding the
"a. Nspirituous liquors without license
rem: force, under which the petitioner
may i y be indicted. In addition to
this he. 'so be proceeded against for a
violation L, ordinance of the city of
Florence mes in the warrant under
which he has nssArrested and is now held
is, therefore, orAr21 ..ih.c -casp
first named in the title u this order, an
l"Junc'ion do issue as prayed :or in this
petition.
1t Is further ordered that, in the seco ld
case named in the title hereof, tho motion of
tue petitioner for discharge be refused
and that the said j. Ellis Brunson be rcman.
ded to the custody of tho chic. of police OF.
the city of Florence to be by E,,n safely kept
u"tii he Is thence delivered hy due course OF
law. This eighth day of May, 1894.
HENRY MClNER,
Chief Justice
we concur: :. MCGOWAN, 4. j.
y. }. POPE. A. j.