Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1894-05-16
THE STATE Is NOW LIE
GALLY DRY.
SUPREME COURT SPEAKS.
An Opinion Clear and Easily Un-
dcrstOOd-ReaSOnS for DeclS-
ion to be Given Later-Unan-
imous Opinion of the
COurt-ViOlatOrS of
the Law Must
Stand Trial.

for a few weeks, the Supreme Court
has decided that absolute prohibl-
ton is in force. The Supreme Court
unanimously decided the question
this morning. The following is
the decision of the court and 1T ex-
plains how the matter got before
the court and the whole question::
The State of South Carolina in
the Supreme Court, April term,
1894. J. L. Barringer ct. al. VS..
The City Council of Florence, ex
parte J. Ellis Brunson.
These two cases instituted in the
original jurisdiction of this court,
being of kindred nature, though
not involving the same question,
were heard and will be considered
together. The first is case ask
ing 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 author
izing the granting of such licenses
and therefore that threatened ac-
tion of said city council in this
respect, is altra uiris.
The second is case in which the
petitioner applies under writ of
habeas corpus, heretofore issued,
for his discharge from custody, in
which he is held under q warrant
issued by the mayorof the city of
Florel-ce, who is invested by the
charter of said city with all the
powers of a trial justice, charging
the petitioner with selling spirit
uous liquors without license in
violation of an ordinance of the
city as we'll as in violation of the
laws of the State. Inasmuch as
one Of these cases involves the
liberty of the citizen, this court
deems it to be its duty to render as
prompt decision as possible. The
court will therefore. proceed simply
to decide the questions presented
in these cases, without undertak-
ing 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 under the
law, as it now stands, there is no
authority invested with the power
to grant licenses for the sale Of
spirituous liquors within the
limits of this State and hence the
action of the City Council of
Florence in granting such licenses
would be ultra wires and abso-
lutely void and therefore, the in
junction, as asked for by the petit
TONERS, in the case first named,
must be granted.
In the second case, the petitioner
moves for his discharge from
custody upon The ground that there
is now no law prohibiting the sale
of spirituous liqours within the
limits of this State. This court
decides that this is mistaken
view of the law. On the contrary,
we hold that the act of 1892,
commonly called the dispensary
act, having. been declared uncon-
stitutional in all its provisions, ex-
cept that forbiddiug the granting
oflicenses to sell spirituous liquors
after the day therein named, the
repeating clouse of that actfell and
must be regarded as if never
enacted, and hence the previous
laws forbidding the sale OF
spirituous liquors without a license
remain of force, under which the
petitioner may lawfully be in
dicted. In addition to the prisoner
thismay also be proceeded against
for violation of the ordinance of the
city of Florence mentioned in the
warrant under which he had been
arrested and is now held in
custody. 1t is, therefore, ordered
ha