The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-05-09
PROHIBITION IN CAROLINA.
Supreme Court Rules That Liquor
Must Not Be Sold.

The Overthrow of the Dispensary Law
Puts the State Under a Prohibition
Law-City Authorities Not Author.
lied TO Issue Lieense-A Writ OF
Habeas Corpus Denied.
Columbia, s. c., May S.-South Caro-
lima jumped from the dispensary system
to absolute free whisky. Now, after a
reign Of whisky for a few weeks the SUI
preme court has decided that absolute
prohibition is in force The supreme
court unanimously decided on this this
morning. The following is the decision
OF the court, and it explains how the mat.
ter got before the court, and the whole
question:
The state OF South Carolina in the Supreme
Court, April term, lsg4.-J. l.. Barringer et al
vs. the city council OF Florence ex parte. J. Ia.
lis brunSon. These'twO cases instituted in the
original Jurisdiction OF this court Defng OF a
kindred nature, though not involving the
same questions. were heard and viii be con.
sidered together.
The first is "a case asking for an Injunction
TO restrain the city council OF Florence from
granting licenses for the sale OF spirituous
liquors, upon the ground that there Is now no
law authorizing the granting of such licenses
and therefore that the threatened action OF
sta+@ eitJ Seafiefi IN tiffs respect Is ultra
wires.
The second is a case In which the petitioner
applies under writ OF hnbeas corpus hereto.
fore issued for his discharge from custody
in which he is held under a warrant issued by
the mayor OF the city OF Florence, who is In
vested In the charter OF said city with all the
powers OF trial Justice charging the petit
tloner with selling sDirituous liquors without
license. IN violation OF an ordinance OF tho
state.
Inasmuch as one OF these cases involves the
liberty of the citizens, the court deems II to
be its QutV To render "A n n 1up1R{an
possible. The court win, therefore, proceed
simply TO decide the questions presented in
these cases without Undertaking now TO give
the reasons for the conclusions, which WILL
however, be hereafter done In an opinion
which will be prepared and filed as soon as
practicable. The court decides that un-
der the law as II now stands, there Ia
no authority invested with power to grant
licenses for the sale OF spirtuous liquors
within the limits OF this state, and hence the
action OF the city council OF Florence tn grant.
ing such licenses would be ultra vires aud abb
solutely void, and, therefore. tho Injunction
as asked Tor by the petitioners IN the case
nrst named must be granted
In the second case the petitioner moves for
his discharge from custody upon the ground
that there sno law forbidding the sale OF
spirituous liquors within the limits OF this
state This court decides that this is a mis-
taken View Of the law. On tho contrary wo
hold that the act Of 1899, commonly called the
dispensary act, having been declared uncon-
stltional ss n,s IN an It's provisions except
licenses TO sell spirituous liquors, after the
day therein named, the repeating clauses OF
that act fall and must be regarded Us II never
enacted and hence the previous law forbid
ding the sale OF spirituous liquors without q
license remains OF force under which the DO.
tiuoner may lawfully be Indicted In addi-
tion to this, he may also be proceeded against
for violation of the ordinance Of the city OF
Florence mentioned In the warrant under
whicn he has been arrested and is now held
in custody.
IL is. therefore oriered that IN the case
first named In the title OF this order. an in
junction do issue as prayed for In this petl-
tion.
II Is further ordered, that in the second
case named in the title hereof the motion OF
the petitioner for a discharge be refused and
that the said j. Ellis Brunson be remanded
to the custody OF the chief OF police Of the
city Of Florence TO be by him safely kept
until he is thence delivered by due course OF
law.
This eighth day OF May 1904.
HENRY MCIvER, Chief Justice.
we concur: $. MCGOWAN, A. J.
Y. POPE, A. j.