The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1897-04-14
that one essential element of the of

| LQaL keeping anu uSluR aDy spHltuou
liquors for ones own personal use o
qualification CONSTITUTES any ofens
against the criminal Jaws of the State
The 25th section IS quoted and Mr.
Justice McIver holds that it does no
even purport to create any crimina
offense but deals only with the seizur
and forfeiture of contraband liquor
Indeed the proviso recognizes TIE le
gslity of the possession of certain Ii
quors which are not bought from tn
dispensary. .
The 26th section is next quoted
which it is contended was not to C
ate any criminal offepse, but to F o..
vent The courts from entertaining ar
action for the recovery of the price O
any liquor so seized.
So much of the 35th section which /!
pertinent is quoted. II IS difficult tt
see what light this section throws or
the subject. It certainly creates nc
criminal ofense except in the last par
aeraph, which Las nothing to do witt
the case, in that it provides for pun
ishment for imitation Of stamps.
He concluded by saying: "a very
careful consideration OF this ca:e L
all its aspects leads inevitably to the
conclusion that the grounds OF appea
must be sustained" Finally, he says
"Inasmuch as this opinion was orjgi
nally prepare / + efore the recent decls
ion of the supreme court ofthe Unitso
States in DoDsld VS.. Scott, 165 U. s.
6S, was announced, I de 7ire to avail
myself of the opportunity now pre-
sented of adding tnat it seems to me
absolutely nc oeSsary to adopt the con
clusion which have reached in order
to avoid conflict with the decision oi
the supreme court of the Unitcd States
which it must be conceded is a ina
arbiter of all questions involving q
construction of the Constitution ol
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
eections of the dispensary law applica
bic to the case says:
when these sections are construed
tccef3er they show first that the act
Goes not prohibit, but on the contrary
in express language, permits aperson
to keep liquor in his possession for his
own use. Second, that in order to
throw the protection of the law around
the liquor in his possession for his use,
it is necessary to furnish an inventory
of the quantity and kinds to the State
commissioner and apply forcertlhcats
to a&x thereto.
Third, that if the l;quor in his pos
session is seizc1 because 1t he's not the
necessary certificates and labels re-
quired 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 at contemplated that there
would necessarily be some time after
the liquor came into possession OF the
person for his own use before he could
apply to the State commissioner for
the necessary certificates and labels.
If it was seized because it did not have
the necessary certificates and labels,
he was even then 10 tie deprived OF the
liquor, provided he could show it was
for his own use but in that case, the
burden of pre- of would be upon him to
show it was for such purpose. Any
other construction of the 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-
tion forthwith to apply to the State
commissioner for the necessary certih
Gates and labels to affiX to it.
"a construction contrary to that
which we place upon the act would
even make a person a violater OF the
law who took a drink of whiskey nm
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 quo 5tion for DEF eiermination is
whether the disrensary act OF 1896
prohibits the storing or keeping OF in
toxicating liquors without having on
the vessel the stamp of the S! tie com
missioner. "The construction con-
tended for py the learned chief JUS
tice," he holds, "would practically
nuliify the dispsnsary law, for it is not
possible to held that the keeping OF
intoxicating liquors in possession
without permission of the stamp is not
punishable unle IS it was kept for un-
lawful use, and not be compelled to
hold the same thing in refer 1nce to
the manufacture and sale of such Ii
quor. Moreover, if a sale of intoxI
eating liquors is not unlawful, unlecs
made for an unlawful use, then q
keeping in recession of contraband
LIQUOR for sale for q lawful use is not
unlawful. This would make para
disc for blind tt ,ers; 1 should say,
rather, there would be no blind tigers
since everybody could sell and keep
for sale intoxicating liquors openly
and with impunity.
"The constt uction we contend for
is not only the natural and grammat'
ical construction of the lang uage usr l.,
but is con sistent " ith the scheme OF
the dispenerry act, whereas, the other
construction is the unnatural, ungram
matical and destructive of the design
and operation of the d;spensary law.
The question is one Of construction
- o,,~ I,,t- do.