The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1897-04-14

The 25th section is quoted and Mr..
Justice McIver holds that it does not
even purport to create any criminal
ofense but deals only with the seizure
and forfeiture of contraband liquor.
Indeed the proviso recognizes the lie
gality of the possession OF certain II
ouors which are not bought from the
dispenSary.
The 26th section is mex. quoted,
which it is conten6ed was not to ere
ate any criminal ofense, but to pre-
vent The courts from entertaining any
action fer the recovery of the price OF
any liquor so seized.
So much of the 35tn section which is
pertinent is quoted. l. is difficult to
see what light this section throws OF
the subject. I. certainly creates 70
criminal otfense except in the last par
agraph, which has nothing to do with
the case, in that it provides for q pun
ishment fer imitation of stamps.
He concluded by saying: "a very
careful consideration of this case IN
all its aspects leads inevitably to the
conclusion that the grounds OF appeal
must be sustained Finally, he says.
'.Inasmuch as this opinion was origl-
nally prepared before the recent decls-
ion of the supreme court ofthe Unlted
s. tes in Donald vs.. Scott, 165 Q. S. .
Is, was announced, I desire to avail!
myself OF the opportunity now pre-
sented Of adding that it seems to me
absolutely y necessary to adopt the con-
clusion which have reached in order
to avoid conflict with the decision OF
the supreme court Of the United States,
which it must be conceded is a final
arbiter of all questions involving a
construction of the Constitution OF
the United States :"
JUSTICE GARY'S VIEW.
Mr.. Justice Gary, in his opinion
concurring with the opinion of the
chief justice, after reviewing the
facts OF the case and quoting several
sections of the dispensary Law appllca
BILE to the case says:
When these sections are construed
together they show first that the act
does not prohibit, but on the contrary
in express language, permits q person
to keep liq Ior in his possession for his
OWE use. Second, that in order to
throw the protection of the law around
the LIQUOR in his possession for MS use,
it is necessary to furnish an inventory
of the quantity and kinds TO the State
commissioner and apply forcertlacase
to afhx thereto.
"Third, that if the liquor in his pos
session is seized because 1t has not the
necessary certificates and labels re-
ouired by the act, and he claims the
liquor the burden OF proof Is upon him
to show that it is for his own use.
1.-The act contemplated that there
would necessarily be some time after
the liquor came into possession OF sne
person for his own use before he could
apply to the State commissioner TOR
the necessary certificates and laoels.
If it was seiz ed because it did not have
the necessary certificates and labels,
he was even then to be deprived OF the
LIQUOR, provided he could show it was
for his own use; but in that case, the
burden of proof would be upon him to
oeaer 6ea construction Of tie act would
make a person q violater OF the law
who simply received as present a
bottle OF liquor coming from another
State, although it might be his lnten-
ton forthwith to apply to the State
commissioner for the necessary certi6
Gates and labels to atfx to it.
"a construction contrary to that
which we place upon the act would
even make person violater o. the
law who took drink of whiskey no-
less it came from the dispensary,
I'VE cannot think this was the in
tention OF the legislature. For these
reasons we concur in the conclusion
announced by Mr.. Chief Justice Mel YER.
JUSTICE JONES POSITION.
Justice Jones, in his decision sus-
tanning the lower court, contends that
the sole question for determination is
whether the dispensary act OF 1895
prohibits the storing or keeping of in
tcxicating liquors without having on
the vessel the stamp of the State com
missioner. ''The construction con-
tended for Dy the learned chief JUS
tice," be holds, would practically
nullify the dispensary law, for it is not
possible to held that the keeping Of
Intoxicating liquors IN possession
without permission of the stamp IS not
punishable unless it was kept for un-
lawful use, and not be compelled to
hold the same thing in reference to
the manufacture aud sale of such IL
quor. Moreover, if a sale of intoNi-
eating liquors is not unlawful, unless
made for an unlawful use, then
keeping in possession OF contraband
liquor for sale for a lawful use is not
unlawful. This would make a para
disc for blind Il gers; I should say,
rather, there would be no blind tigers
since everybody could sell and keep
for sale intoxicating liquors openly
and with impun;ty.
The construction We contend for
is not only the natural and grammat'
ical construction of the language used,
but is con nsistent with the scheme OF
the dispensary act, whereas, the other
construction is the unnatural, ungram
matical and destructive of the design
and operation of the dispensary law.
The question IS one OF construction
merely. It is simply our duty to de-
clare the law. We have nothing to
do with 5 wisdom or its severity.
The harsh1 : OF its operation, real or
supposed, S. lid not in the least
swerve US fro our plain duty. There
was no error in the charge Of the
judge complained of and the judgment
of the circuit court should be affirmed.
A Little Fiend.
CHICAGO, April 6.-Russell Freer,
the two and a half year old son OF
poor parents living at 1896 Thirty
Ninth Place burned out the eyes of his
ten months old brother this morning
with a ared hot poker and the doctors
cannot tell if the child will live. The