The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1894-08-15
THE DISPENSARY LAW.
JUDGE SIMONTON'5 DECISION ON
THE SILVER CASE.

iIlC SlGfCR SSSS-
The Attorney General Con.teues the ID B.
cision to Mean that The 1913 Law Is Held
Solid on Federal Constitutional ooes.
t:ons.
The following, which is the full text
Of Judge Simontiou's decision in the Sill
Yer habeas corpus case-the case upon
which the State is endeavoring to have
the United States Supreme Court de-
clare, whether the ;9S dispensary law
is in violation Of the constitution of the
United States or not-vill b. found Of
great interest:
The United States of America, District
Of South Carolina, 4!h Crealt-In
The Circuit CCurt-In the matter Of
A. Silver.
This is a petition for discharge from
custody under writ Of habeas corpus.
The petition sets cut that Silver is q
Russian subject, an alien, and that he
has been since the year 1892 and ls
now doing business or trading II the
State Of South Carolina. That he is
wrongfully detained and imprisoned by
Mr.. John H. Dukes, sheriff CT Orange.
burg county in said State, on war
rant issued by Mr.. Charles p. ,,Brunson,
trial justice, on 2lst July, 1894, for an
alleged violation of the act of the Cen
eral Assembly of the State of South
Carolina, approved 2Sd December, 1898
entitled: An act to declare the law in
reference to and further regulate the use.
sale, consumption, transportation and
disposition Of alcoholic liquors or liquids
within the State of South Carolina and
and to police the same.
The petition AYERS and charges in
these words, ''that the said act is un-
constitutional, nall and void, N VIOLA
ton of and repugnant to numerous and
sundry provisions contained in the Con.
stitution of the United States and that
of the State of South Carolina, and that
it is in violation Of the treaty no1 exist.
Ing between the United States and the
Russian Empire
The Hon. 0. W. Buchanan, Attorney
General of the State of South Carroll
ma. was present at the presentation of
the petition, and upon the issuance of
the writ filed the return Of the sheriff
thereto. The return simply submits
the warrants of the trial justice upon
| which tie sheriff acted. No mention
whatever is made in the warrant or in
the affidavit on which it was Issued Of
the act of 1898, set out in tie petition,
nor is there any reference thereto. The
argument has taken wide range, and
the fundamental principles of govern
ment, primordial rights Of the people
and the limitations of legislative power
have been fully and learnedlY discussed.
This line of argument will not be fol-
lowed. for the grounds on which con-
clusion has been reached lie in very
narrow compass.
The Courts of the United States are
very reluctant to interfere with the Grim
iaal process of The State courts. In
Cook vs.. Hart, l40 US. 1875, the Su-
preme Court, recognizing the right un-
der proper circumstances so to interfere,
and adhering to its rulings in ex parte
Royal, III, q. S., 24l, and ex parte
Fonda, bid 51s, goes on and says:
"Wbile the power to issue Wrlts CT ha'
beas corpus to State courts, which are
proceeding in disregard of rights secured
by the Constitution and laws OF the
United States exist, the practice oi -.
ercisiny this power before the question
is raised or determined in the State
court is one which should not be encour-
aged. The party charged valves no
question of jurisdiction by submitting to
trial of his case on the merits, and we
think that comfy demands that the State
courts, under whose process ne is held,
should be appealed to in the first instance.
Should such rights be denied his remedy
in the Federal Court will remain unlm.
paired" Sse also in re Frederick, lag
US. "A is this one Of those exceptional
cases in which this court should luter-
fere?
The averments OF the petition are
vague and uncertain. They contain a
sweeping assertion, that the act Of 1898,
under which he alleges that be is pros
ecuted is null and void, ''in violation OF
and sepugnant to numerous and sundrY
provisions" of the Federal State Constl.
tutions.
Over 30 much of this assertion as re.
| fers to the Constitution OF the State OF
South Carolina this court has no juris.
dictiou in babeas corpus. It can only
inquire if the prisoner is in custody for
an act done or omitted in pursuance. OF
law of the United States or OF any order,
process. or decree OF court Of the same
or of q Judge thereof, or is in custody IN
violation of the Constitution Of the
| United States. (Rsvised Statutes OF the
United States, Section 753 See in re
Burves, 1873 U. S., $50.
The sherlf's justification for holding
the prisoner is the warrant Of the trial
| Justice. That warrant is issued on an
affidavit, with distinct, direct aver
ment that one a. Silver, at his store in
the city of Orangeburg, in the county
and State aforesaid, on the 2lst of July,
1894, did unlawfully sell Intoxicating Ii
quors, to-wlt, one pint of ofwhiskey, with
| out a permit, IN violation Of law. The
warrent recltes that whsreas, complaint
has been made before me that A. Silver
has unlaWfully violated the dispensary
act in selling intoxicating liquor, and
| without permit, certificate or State
license, orders his apprehension.
The Supreme Court OF South Carolina
in Mccullough vs., Brown, Mss, 1924,
has held that so much of the dlspensary
law of 1892 as forbids the sale of intoXl-
eating liquors without license is not
In conflict with the State Constitution.
Tia Sr,,ranoa Enl1rt nf the Irnited States