Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1898-01-15

law, and caused great many to lose
faith in the system. But by. reorgani.
zation of the force this mismanage.
ment was corrected, and the board
has since worked in harmony. Be il
said to their credit, the dispensary is
now conducted in more business-like
way than ever before. Had i. not
been for the intervention of the fed.
eral courts, I do not hesitate to say
that the dispensary would today have
very little opposition, and would have
already proved, both financially and
morally, great success.
The federal courts have seriously
crippled the law and rendered futile
all my efforts for its enforcement, by
holding in the case of Donald Va. Scott
that citizens of the state have right
to import whisky for personal use.
A great many who were engaged in
the illicit traffic in whisky took ad-
vantage of this decision to import
whisky for sale; it thus became very
difficult for the state constables to tell
when it was imported for personal use
only. The state constables, under my
instructions, seized quantities of whis-
XIV where there were suspicious cir
cumstances connected with its impor-
tation but upon application to Judge
Simonton nearly all the whisky seized
was released.
Beginning with this decision, the
state has been involved in continuous
litigation. In the case of Elk. Parte
Loeb, Judge Simonton held that agents
of liquor dealers outside the state
might come into the state, take orders
for liquors and ship them to citizens OF
the state. Encouraged by the above
decisions, the liquor men applied to
the United States circuit court for
greater privileges and in the Wander
cock decision were granted all they
desired. In this case the same judge
held that citizens of another state
might import, store away, and sell
liquors in original unbroken packages
of all sizes not less than one-half pint.
This led to the opening in the state OF
hundreds of private liquor houses and
flooded the whole of South Carolina
with whisky.
Blind tigers, furnished by "original
package" dealers, began the sale of
whisky in quiet, peaceable communi-
ties where liquor has never been sold.
In my efforts to enforce the dispensary
law as modified by the judges decis-
ions / met with great difficulties. At
one time Judge Simonton seemed to
assume the combined prerogatives OF
the chief executive and the legislature
of South Carolina, and undertook the
amendment of the dispensary law by
injunction. The governor, the consta-
bles, and all persons connected with
the enforcement of the law, were en-
Joined from interfering in any way
with the "original package" dealers,
and a law enacted by the representa-
tives of sovereign state was practi-
cally repealed by federal judge.
When it was reported to me that
Warn, Byrd & Co., "original package
dealers at Bamberg, were selling whis-
ky to drunkards, 1 Immediately order
ed the constables to seize their liquors
and arrest them for maintaining a
nuisance. This was done, but they
applied to Judge Simonton to have the
stock of liquors returned at once, and
asked that the constables and all per-
sons acting under them, or by virtue
Of authority from them, be restrained
from further intermeddling with the
said property. This request was gran
ted, Notwithstanding witnesses swore
that they had seen the man who bought
liquor at or about the time of the sale,
and that he was drunk. The judge
held that, to be guilty of the ofense
of selling to drunkard, the party
selling must either know or must have
substantial reason to believe that the
party buying was drunk at the time.
Again, in the case of E. ]. Connor
vs.. Geo. S. McCravy ct. al, Geo. S.
McCravy, sheriff of Laurens county,
notified me that four 2-horse wagons
had been sent to Augusta for whisky
and that on their way back to Laurens
he received information that the dri-
vers were drunk and boisterous and
were selling whisky from the wagons.
1 ordered the wagons and liquors
seized as soon as they arrived at Lau-
rens. Thereupon E. J. Connor filed
bill of complaint in the United
States circuit court, praying for a
perpetual injunction restraining the
defendants from seizing liquors of the
complainant. Upon this bill being
filed Judge Simonton granted a rule
against the defendants, requiring them
to show cause why temporary writ
of injunctions should not be granted,
and at the same time he made re-
straining order to the following effect,
to wit: EDjoining the defendants from
Selling or attempting to seize, in tran
sit or after arrival, or otherwise car
rying away or confscating or OBTAINING
any of the liquors, wines or beer i'm
ported or sent into the state by the
complainant; and furthermore com
manding said defendants to forthwith
deliver the horses, wagons, wines and