The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1897-10-12

.. IEhls act, and the ordinance aboye
-ITeferred to, are both without doubt c
valid exercise of the police power
and if not modified or repealed by
subsequent Legislation, must control
this case.
1t is urged by the complainant
that the several acts Of the Legisla
ture which contain what is known as
the d'spensary law has i'll effect re-
pealed all legislation whatever
heretofore existing upon the subject
Of intoxicating liquors. They con-
tend that there are no longer any
municipal communities in this State
protected by prohibition laws, and
that the sale of intoxicating liquors
is ORGAN be made lawful anywhere
in~this State, the most stringent leg
iislation to the contrary notwithstand-
ing,
None OF theseNacts in terms repeal
the statutes forbidding the sale of
intoxicating liquor in various local.
ties throughout the State. If these
are repealed it must be by implica-
tion. Repeats Of statutes by impli-
catioh are not favored and are never
admitted when the former can stand
with the now act, but only when
there is q positive repugnancy be
tween the statutes or the latter is
plainly intended as n substitute for
the former. (Chew Heong w. The
U. s., 1l2 U. S., 530.) The act Of
1882, above referred to, is not limit
ed as to time. A perpetual statute
(Which all statutes are unless limited
to particular time) until repealed
by an act protesting to repeal it or
by a clause or section of another act
directly bearing in torms upon the
particular matter of the first act.
Notwithstanding an implication to the
contrary may be raised by general
law which embraces the subject mat
ter-is considered still to be the law
in force as to the particulars of the
subject legislated on. Omitted States
va Gear. z How 1907
The repeating clause Of the dis
pensary act Of 1896, the summary of
all the other acts (22 Statutes at
Large l23) repeals all acts lnconsist-
ent with that act. So far from be,
ing inconsistent with the dispensary
law, the act establishing the dispen-
sary itself recognizes the existence
of this prohibiting act and of all
others of like character. It makes
an exception in the authority to es-
tablish dispensary in any part Of
the State, Of any county, town or
city wherein the sale of alcoholic H.
quors was prohibited prior to July 1,
1898. In such cities, counties and
towns no dispensary can be estab-
lished except with the consent of the
qualified voters voting ct an election
to be ordered on the petition OF one
fourth Of them. Until this ia done
the prohibition is absolute. In the
act of 1882, prohibiting the sale Of
intoxicating liquors in the town of
Greenwood, a provision essentially
similar in principle is made. No
Intoxicating liquors can be sold in
the town Of Greenwood except with
the consent of tho qualified voters,
voting at an election called for the
purpose of ascertaining their wishes
on this particular subject.
This being SO, the act of the Leg
islature of 1882 is still of force. Tho
ordinance Of the town council is a
valid ordinance.
Under the law as it now stands, no
one, whether representing the State
or private person, can lawfully sell
intoxicating liquors in the town of
Greenwood. So far as that muni-
cipality is concerned, Intoxicating
liquors arc not Oh article of COM
merco. Under the provisions of the
aot of Congress of 1900, commonly
known as the Wilson act, intoxicat
ing liquors coming into tho town of
Greenwood are subject to all laws
and ordinances passed in tho lawful
exercise of the police power. Tho
act of the Legislature in question
end the ordinance of the town are