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

4oo
very obvious, therefore, that the Act
there under consideration differed very
widely from the Act which We are now
called upon to consider.
If, then. the Dispeusary Act cannot
be defended as a probibitory law, it is
contended that it may be sustained as q
law regulating the sale Of intoxicating
liquors under what is called the police
power, ubich, it is claimed, practically,
is unlimited in its scope by constitution
al provisions, and its exercise depends
solely upon the legislative will, which
cannot be controlled or restricted by
the judiciary. It seems to US that
such a claim is not only utterly at
variance with any just conception of a
constitutional government, but is en-
tirely inconsistent with the numerous
cases in which the Courts, both State
and Federal, have undertaken to limit
and restrict the exercise of such a
power by State legislation ; and, what
ia more to the point in this particular
case, our own Court has distinctly
repudiated the idea Of the exercise of
what is claimed to be the police power
is beyond judicial control.
In the case of McCandless against
the Richmond and Danyille Railroad
Company, 38 S. c., 103, Mr.. Justice
Pope, as the organ Of the Court, after
referring to the fact that the Circuit
Judge had held that the statute there
in question vas a valid exercise of the
police power, uses this language: but
a careful consideration Of the latest
official declarations Of this law by the
Supreme Court of the United States
has led us to modify our conceptions of
what is involved 10 what is called the
police power of a State in this Union Of
States. The fundamental idea ln
aacribiug such potency to this principle
Of the law is based upon the indis.
putable principles of self-defence."
And upon this point Of the case the
Court was unanimous: though there
was a general dissent upon another
point.
Indeed, to hold that every Act Of the
General Assembly passed under the
guise of an exercise Of the police power,
or sought to be defended upon that
ground, is beyond Judicial control
would render every guaranty Of person.
al rights found 10 the Constitution of
little or no value. See also what is
said by Mr.. Justice Harlan in the case
Of Kugler against Kansas at p. COL,
where, after recognizing the existence
of and the necessity for the police
power, and after admitting that sacb
power belongs to the legislative de-
partmeut af the Government, he uses
this language: ut belongs to that de-
partment to exert what are known as
the police powers of the State. and to
determine primarily what measures are
appropriate or ueedful for the protection
Of the public morals, the public health
or the public safeties."
It does not at all follow that every
statute enacted ostensibly for the pro.
motion of these ends is to be accepted
as a legitimate exertion Of the police
movers of the State. There are OF
necessity limits beyond which legisla-
ton cannot ri%ghtfully 60. While
every possible presumption is TO be
INDUCED 10 favor of the validity Of a
statute, Singing Fund cases, SO U. s.,
700,) the Courts must obey the Con.
stitution rather than the law making
department Of Government, and must,
upon their ~ responsibility, deter
mine whether, in any particular case,
these limits have been passed. etc
what purpose it was said 10 Narbury
against Madison, l Crouch, 1877, "are
powers limited. and to what purpose is
that Limitation committed to writing,
if these limits may, at any time, be
passed by those intended to be restrain
{. ed?
The Courts are not bound by mere
forms nor are they to be misled by
mere ~pretences. They are at liberty
indeed are under a solemn duty, tt
look at the substance Of things when.
ever they enter upon the inquiry
whether the Legislature has transcend
ed the limits of its authority If
therefore, a statute %purportiog to have
been enacted to protect the public
health. the public morals or the public
safety has no real or substantial rela
tons to those objects, or is a palpable
invasion Of rights secured by the fun.
dameutal law. it is the duty of the
Courts to so adjudge and thereby give
effect to the Constitution" See also
what was said by our " Court 10 the
case of Whaley vs.. Gaillard, 81 S c.,
ar nZ578. where the same principle