The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1899-08-03
NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES GIVEN,

NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGE IGS GIVEN
The Supreme Court Declares that
Dispcnsary OOnstablos Cannot Garry
Concealed Weapons.
Columbia State.
Evor since the establishment Of the
State liquor cOnstabulary 1t has been
the custom OF the oOnstab.eS to carry
concealed weapons under the belief that
The commission gave them the right
TO DO so. Tho effect OF tho practice
hhs been soon In a mum Dor OF bloody
affairs ocourrying hero and thore about
the State. IL Is 3 strange coincidence
that tho supremo court hands down an
opinion in which it ID hold that such
of1icers have no right to bear concealed
weapons, In q case In which w. II.
Crawford, the constable who killed
Mrs. Stuart In this city, is the rcspon-
OF Laurens, appellant, VS.. w. II. Draw
ford, respondent" and the opinion is
written by Associate Justice Gary. Is
Is interesting TO note also that the
opinion leaves no loOpholes by which
sherlfs or any other officers may bear
concealed weapons. The opinion reads
rs follows:
Tho record contains the following
statement Of facts: On July 23, 1905
the defendant, w. H. Crawf ford, named
above, WAS tried before the mayor OF
tho city OF LSurons, charged with tho
violation OF an ordinance OF said city,
on July %. 1898, by having concealed
about his person pistol.
The defend mt admitted that he did
have n pistol concealed about his per-
itrI l.l 4 4.
lS0S, but cOntcndod that he was "a
State constable ana had II right to car.
ry his pistol concealed about h is person.
Tho defendant WAS Il State consta-
bic, but tho mayor overruled tho con
Lontt0n OF the defendant, convicted
him OF tho crlmo charged and zen
tonced him to pay Il iinc OF VI or be i'm
prisoned 10 days.
Tho defendant appealed TO tho court
OF general sessions for I,aurons coun-
ty, upon the grounds that he wua an
officer, State constable, and had 81
right to carry his pistol concealed
about his person. Tho appeal WAS heard
by his honor, Judge Townsend, at tho
October, 1898, torn Of court OF general
sesslons for Laurens county.
His honor, the circuit judge, ordered
that the appeal be and il sustained =,
and that the entire proceedings herein
be and arc hereby dismissed, and that
the defendants bond on appeal be dis
charged and cancelled"
The city OF Laurens appealed from
the 0rdcr upon exceptions, raising
practically tho single Question OF law
whether o State constable IA exempt
from the operation OF tho law forbid
ding the carrying OF pistol concealed
about the person.
The first act on this subject was
passed In 1880 (l7 Stat, 4i7), tho fourth
section OF which WAS IN follows
Nothing herein contained shall be
construed to apply to peace oficers
while In the actual discharge OF their
dutieB rs such officers, nor to persons
carrying concealed weapons while
upon their own premises
In 1897 another act Was passed (22
Stat, 42}), In which. without referring
to previous Legislation, the language
or the formor act WAS substantially
| repeated with the important exception
persons shall be exempt from it's pro.
vlsionB, peace officers, are entirely
omitted.
The Language OF the last act is Of
follows: Nothing herein contained
shall be construed to apply to personi
carrying concealed weapon0 upon thel,
own premises."
The act concludes with tho usual re
pealing clause.
Tho frat question, therefore, to bt
determined ia whether the provision
Ia tho previous law exempting peac,
officers while In the actual disohssR,
Of their duties as such from the opera
tion OF the act is repealed by the sub
sequont act OF 1897.
This turns upon the inquiry whetho
tho provisions OF tho latter act are In
consistent with those OF tho ferme
act; for, II they are, then, by tho OK
press terms OF tho last section OF tn
act OF 1897, the previous provislons no
reenacted are repealed.
| Tho rule 10 we'll settled that whom
statute oxempts two classos of person
from the operation thereof and a sui
sequent statute on precisely tho sam
subject excmpts only ono OF tho tw
classes named In the previous atatut
the provislons OF the two statutes al
inconsistent with each other and QUO
inconsistent provieions arc repealed
tho latter statute.
The circuit Judge, therefore, errt
In his conclusion Of the said statutes
1t is the judgment OF the court tn
the order OF the circuit court be r
vorscd.
| --~---------.sH1> 49, -sSeas--------