The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1894-04-25

sale of liquor by the people of the
State. for it is difficult to see how an
Act forbiddiDg a sale can be regarded
as an Act regulating such sales. That
which is forbidden cannot we'll be regu-
lated.
But it may be said that the Dispen-
sary Act, while %forbiddiug all private
persons to sell intoxicating liquors, does
permit such sale to be made by the State
itself through its authorized officers and
agents, and that these sales may be and
are regulated by the numerous provi-
sions Of the Dispensary Act. But when
it is remembered that all such %restric-
tons upon or regulations Of sales of any
lawful article of can be
INDICATED only as an exercise Of the
police power, We do not see how such a
view can be accepted. The police
power, however, can only be resorted to
for the government and control of the
people of the State, and cannot with any
propriety be appealed to for the purpose
Of controlling the action Of the State
itself and as the State can only act
through its authorized officers or agents,
the police power cannot be resorted to
for the purpose Of controlling such
officers aud agents, if for no other rea-
son, because it is wholly unnecessary. as
the State has ample means of controlling
it's own officials without resorting to the
underlined and therefore dangerous
power know as the police power.
But wei if this view be not sound,
and this provision Of the Dispensary
Act whereby the State assumes to itself
the exclusive right 10 engage in the
sale Of intoxicating liquors. taking to
itself and its subordinate governmental
agencies the entire profits Of such
traffic, to the utter exclusion of all pri-
vate individuals. could with any pro-
priety be regarded as a police regula-
ton for the protection Of the public
health or. public morals, there would
still remain in the question whether
such an exercise Of the police power was
necessary to effect these important
purposes; for after all the exer-
tion of the police power, especially
where it abridges or destroys the con-
stitutioual rights Of the citizen, can
only be vindicated as a measure of self
defence, as it is expressed by Mr..
Justice Pope. supra, or, as it is express
ed by other authorities, by some over
ruling necessity.
If the various restrictions and regula-
tons as to the sale of Intoxicating
liquors BY the officers and agents OF the
State be designed only 70, the protec-
ton of the public health or the public
morals and are fit aud appropriate to
that end we dc not see why such
restrictions and regulations could not be
applied to the sale of such liquors by
private individuals, and if so then,
certainly, there was no necessity for
such a sweeping Act whereby the con-
stitutiooal rights Of the citizen herin-
before referred to have been absolutely
destroyed, but these rights would be
reserved to the citizen and only re-
stricted by such regulations as may be
necessary for the public good.
But in addition to this We are compell-
ed to say, without in the slightest degree
intending to impeach the motives or to
criticise the intentions Of the members
Of the Legislature by which this Act
was passed, and On the contrary, freely
according to them the best motives and
the purest intentions, that Judging the
Act from the terms employed 10 it (tbe
only way i 10 which a Court is at liberty
to form an %opinion) it cannot be justly
regarded as s police regulation, but
simply as an Act to increase the revenue
of the State and it's subordinate govern
mental agencies, This is apparent
from the profit features of the Act.
from the various stringent provisions de-
signed to compel consumers of %intoxica-
ting liquors to obtain them only from
the officers and agents Of the State, aud
notably by the provisions authorizing
} the State commissioner to sell such
; liquors to persons outside Of the limits
: of the State, which certainly cannot be
regarded as bearing the finest resem-
blance to a police regulation for the
: purpose Of protecting the public health
/, or the public morals of the people of
!, this State.
; But it is earnestly contended by the
, Attorney General that if the power to
prohibit absolutely the sale Of iutoxica-
: ting liquors be conceded it follows
necessarily that the State may assume
, the monopoly of such a trade, and in
!, support of this view he cites Ticdeman
on the limitations of the police power,
SIS. where that author uses the follow