The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1894-06-12
south Carolina

and novel experiment., not only in the
1restraint and control of the consump-
tion of Intoxicating liquors, but like
wise ! governmental Interference with
control OF the liquor trade has been
confined to total prohibition of the
sale and manufacture of Intoxicating
liquors. except for medicinal, mechani-
cal, and sacramental purposes, and
the exactiOn OF q license from those
who engage In it's sale and manufac-
ture. And the chief constitutional
s0bjection to such Legislation is the
charge that the personal liberty of the
private consumer has been unduly in
terfered with by the rigid removal of
his opportunities OF procuring the
liquor he desires to consume, and the
Indirect prohibition OF his use of in
~toxicating liquors by combining its sale
for other uses than as o beverage.
Notwithstanding this serious objection
to the constitutionality of the prohibit
tion law, total prohibition has been
sustained by every court of last resort,
before which the question has been
raised. AS q practical question of
constitutional law, it must be con-
sidered as settled that the state gov
pressly restrained by constitutional
provisions, to prohibit altogether the
sale and manufacture of Intoxicating
liquors, or to subject the trade to
whatever restrictions and police
supervision, short OF total prohibition,
may be suggested to the discretion of
the Legislature. And in the majority
opinion of the South Carolina Supreme
Court, 1t 10 conceded that a law, which
prohibited the sale and manufacture
OF Intoxicating liquor. would be IN
stitutional.
The South Carolina Dispensary law
does not undertake to prevent the
consumption of liquor by those who
desire IT., but aims to diminish or
remove altogether the evils of the
liquor trade, by prohibiting all private
trade in Intoxicating liquors, and pro-
vidtng o the future prosecution Of
81 trade as a government monopoly.
II therefore, the constitutionality Of
this dispensary law can be successfully
attacked, 1t must be on some other
ground than that it is in the nature of
u sumptuary law, and that it unduly
restricts the personal liberty of the
citizen. The only practical restraint,
to which he Is subjected, is tho
necessity OF purchasing his liquor from
h State, and Of drinking it in some
other place than where he purchases
1t.
If the Dispensary Law had provided
for The establishment Of a private
monopoly, granting to n or more
parties, or to a private corporation, tho
exclusive privilege Of the manufacture
and sale ofintoxicating liquors, it would
be impossible to successfully contend
against its constitutiOnality, as long
as you cOncede the constitutionality
OF prohibition laws. If it be within
n power of q State government to
prohibit al Objectionable trade alto
gether, 1t is within it's discretion to
avoid the evil Of a promiscuous pro.
secution Of the trade, either by exact
ing a high license from those who
engage in 1t, which operates as q
partial prohibition, or by granting to
one or more parties, the monopoly of
the trade. If there was at any time
any doubt as to the power of a State
government, as a police regulation, to
convert into a monopoly. a trade whose
unrestricted prosecution threatens the
public with disastrous evils, that doubt
was solved by the decision of tho
Supreme Court of the United States in
the celebrated Slaughterhouse Cases
(l6 Wall. 1851. The Legislature of
Louisiana had granted to a private
corporation the exclusive right OF
maintaining a slaughterhousc, Tor the
hou hOoi vi ~ III CuUUlS lOI Uno NOW
Orleans market, and compelled all the
butchers ofNew Orleans to bring their
cattle to the premises of this corpora
tion for slaughter, upon payment of q
reasonable fee to the corporation.
The reason for the establishment OF
this monopoly, was the inability, in a
hot climate like that of Louisiana, OF
throwing around the slaughter and
sale of fresh meat, the police supervi-
sion which is needed there, for the
preservation of the public health of
the city of New Orleans. The SUI
preme Court of the United States
declared that, in order to preserve the
public health, the State may make
such a monopoly of the business of
Strengthening cattle, without unduly
interfering with the personal liberty
OF the butchers of New Orleans. The
same conclusion is reached in other
cases., in respect to the construction Of
gas and water companies and railroad
companies. No one has any so called
natural right to construct q railroad
or gas or w~ater-works, and lay pipes
through the highway [See Tiedeman's
The public welfare requires hat these
devices for human comfort shall be
established as monopolies to be enjoy
ed by the public at large, upon pay
men OF a reasonable compensation.
In many of the States, a very high
license, in many cases, $1,000 is ex
acted Of the liquor dealer. Such a
license, which is plainly imposed as n
police regulation, MAKES of the trade
u monopoly, as to those who are there
by prohibited from prosecuting it, |
because they are unable or unwilling to
pay the license, for the exaction OF
such a license makes 1t impossible for
more than a limited number to make |
u profit out Of the business. [See |
Tiodeman's Lin. of Police Power ia
101, 105. All these monopolies have
been sustained by the American
courts.
But the South Carolina Dispensary
Law does not create a private mo-
nopoly, but a government monopoly,
and this Is tho ground, upon which the
Supreme Court OF South Carolina pro-
nounce the law to be unconstitutional.
They hold that 1t Is beyond the power
OF government, without q special grant
of authority in the State constitution,
engage in n business or trade, as q
government monopoly even though
tho purpose of such a monopoly be the
promotion of temperance and the
reduction or removal OF the evils of the
LIQUOR trade.
Whatever may be ones own
opinion of the wisdom or e~xpedience
OF legislation for the promotion of
temperance, or Of the correctness OF |
the opinion Of the South Carolina