The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1897-01-26
IiIIman and Irby on the DiSpenSary Case.
THE DOCTORS WILL D,ssGREB

| Ahb DoCIokS WILL DlSa GREE.
Gilman Thinks the Decision Does
Not Hurt the Law-Irby believes
the Law is Dead.
Special to News and Courier.
Senator Tillman's hobby, (thc South
Carolina dtspensary liquor law) has
been ditchcd by the Supreme Court OF
the United States. The Court decided
that the law is unconstitutional so far
| as 1T seeks to prohibit citizens of the
State from importing into the COM
monwoalth liquor for personal use
The question whether the State has
the right to engage in the liquor traf-
tic was not raised during the trial,
hence the cOnstitutonality OF the en-
tire dispensarylaw was not passed upon
by the Court.
The general opinion Of South Caro-
llnians and lawyers who have followed
this interesting case is that the deci-
liquor law, which enabled Senator
Illlman to rise from the Governors
chair to the United States Senate
| Ever since the Chicago convention
TIllman's influence in South Carolina
has been on the down-gradc. and his
| political enemies claim that the deci-
sion OF the Supreme Court to-day will
expedite his journey into political OBJ
security. One Of the interesting Incl
dents of the day was the wide differ
ence OF opinion between the two South
Carolina Senators on this subject. Irby
claims to have made Tillman, but re-
Gently they quarrcllcd and Tillman
undertook to displacc Irby in the Sen
ate with Ex-Governor John Cary
Evans: lrby joined forces with the
Anti-Tlllman faction in the State and
helped to defeat Evans with Judge
Earle.
To-day Tillman and Irhy met in the
Senate chamber for the first time this
session. Tillman advanced towards
his colleague and extended his hand.
The handshakc that followed was
about as cordial as Corbett and FitZ-
simmons will put up if they ever meet
at the ring side a few perfunctory
! words were exchanged and the hated
rivals parted a few minutes later
the news reached the Senate that tho
South Carolina liquor case had been
decided against tho State. Here is
| how the South Carolina Senators OK.
| pressed themselves on the subject:
| Senator Tillman said he was the
| daddy Of the dispensary child, and
| therefore he was anxious to ascertain
to what extent the Supreme Court had
| mutilated his offspring" There was
considerable confusion over the deci-
sion OF the Court owing to the fact that
Chief Justice Fuller announced the
| decree Of the Court for Mr.. Justice
Shiras, who was absent from the bench
| to-day. The decision was quite long,
and the Chief Justice made but brief
statement OF the findings Of the Court.
Ills condensation was such that il was
| difficult to determine whether the
(DlIrt no Il
pcnsary act, or simply that part OF it
which enables partics'to bring liquor
into the State for their personal use.
After spending several hours in trying
to get at the real scope of the decision
Senator Tillman was informed by Mr..
| Justice Brown, who dissenteu from the
| opinion OF the Court, that the decision
aflirms the decree of the lower coYrt.
which decided that it was unconstitu-
tlonal Tor the State authorities to ar
rest persons for bringing liquor into
the State for personal use. With that
understanding of the decision Senator
Iillman exclaimed: That decision
does not Kill my dispensary law by
jug full. AS ] understand it the de-
clslon simply aiirms the decision of
Judge Simonton, who more than a
year ago issued an Injunction which
prevented the State officers from ar
resting and scizing liquor brought into
the State for the personal use Of the
parties interested. 1t does not go into
the general question of the constitu.
tional right Of the State to traffic in
liquor. We have been operating under
the Injunction OF Judge Simonton for
| more than year. and the decision
! rendered to-day does not materially
Affect the existence of the law We
will go right ahead and enforce the
law 50 as not TO conflict with the Su-
preme Court, hut il We find that the
law is not broad enough | viii under
take to get a special Act OF Congress
passed to give us all the power we de-
sire to enforce the law. The fight is
not over by jug full, and we will con.
tinue to defend the dispcnsary law be-
cause we believe it is for the good of
the people Of the state"
"Will not the decision rendered to.
day enable or encourage people to
cvadc the law and make combinations
to get liquor into the State under the
prcteXt that it is for their personal
use y"
If they do We will capture their
stun just as we are doing to-day. If
any further legislation is necessary,
our Legislature is in session, and wo
will amend the law to meet any en-
Urgency that may arise. There is a
mistaken idea prevailing in the minds
OF certain people that the dispensGry
law was enacted to give the State rev
cnue. That was not the intention of
the trainers of the law. We want to
break up the bar-room system and cur
tail the consumption Of liquors in the
State. We don't care anything about
the revenue we get from it if we can
prevent drunkenness and check the
influence of the rum sellers in State
politics. a great deal has been said
about the dispensa"y law being used
to promote the political ambition of
certain men in the State. These
charges are without foundation, and it
will not Go for the enemies of the law
to keep up that old cry"
Senator lrby said that he was unable
to see the text OF tho decision, but the
impression given him by those who
listened to its reading by Chief Justice
Fuller was that the Court decides the
entire dispensary Act unconstitutional
He read Mr.. Justice Browns dissent,
which seemed to take the ground that
the majority of the Court erred in de-
claring the whole Act uncons.itution-
al. 81 have always believed in the
| spirit OF the dispensary law" said
Senator Irby, but I realize that it
has been rendered obnoxious to ma
jority OF the people OF the State by the
/ AlN.N L., II 4