The Farmville herald. [volume] (Farmville, Va.) 1890-1934, 1901-05-10

. constitutional rights are being therein
; pfgudiclally affected" This strot.
: language was used in reference u con
pulsory legislation In what might h
b considered IN one sense the legliimaf
ana proper exercise Of the functions Il
municipal government, such a. IN,
improvements Of streets, parks, DC
with how much greater force does i
apply ID enforce taxation for such
dubious purpose As that contemplated
IN this acH In Atkins vs.. the town o
Randolph 3lst VI 226 the precise ques.
ton involved In this case came befor,
the court for adjudication and il wa.
held that an act providing for the an.
pOlnlment OF an agent of the town by
the commissioner with power 10 pur
chase liquors on the credit of the town
ana To sell the same and pay over the
proceeds into the town treasury WAS
unconstitutional. This judgement is
based upon the ground that the leg
lslatlVe power over municipal CORPORA
ions Is not supreme aud does not in.
clude the power of compelling them
10 enter into contracts of a private
character, although it might conduce
to the public good
The case Of the State vs. City Coun
ell of Aiken South Cardinal 10Th :. G
Rep. p. 22l has been referred 10 conf
IDENTIFY by the defendants as conclusive
OF the case here. have examined this
case and also the case of Mccullough
VS. Brown (South Cardinal 18th ;. c.
Rep. p. 45S with great care. aud find
TINS curious state Of affairs: I'm April.
1871, the Supreme Court of South Car.
DINA composed of three Judges by
vote Of two TO one decided the Dispen-
sary act TO be unconstitutional, and in
October of the same year the same
court decided the act to be Constitu
tlonal by the same vote Of two 10 one.
thus reversing Itself completely in six |
months time after the first decision |
The explanation seems to be this, after |
the first decision the term Of one of the
Judges in the majority expired and
new Judge elected during the hurry
Ourly OF the great agitation of this
question IN that state, came upon the
bench. | have read with much inter
est the opinion OF the court i'm both
,ases and do not hesitate to say that IN
my judgment the opinion Of Chief Jus.
ice Mclver in the first case is far ADLER
ana more cOnsOnant with reason and
authority than the opinion OF the court
ielive. ed by Judge Gary in the last
.ase.
| think il much safer 10 RELY upou
he opinions Of Judges who 90 upon
lie Bench In peaceful and placid times,
having no precOnceived opinions on
questions which must come before
hem for decision, than upon the opin.
on of some stormy petrol Of the law
Who has arisen from this storm and
trife Of public agitation and taken his
lace upon the bench. But it is not
ecessary to enter upon the discussion
ndulged i'm there Much might be
AID about the prJprlety Of the state
avlng up its statute books law
'hlch makes every man woman aud {
hid in the community willingly OF
nwilingly participant in the profit
the liquor traffic, and that law only
efended upon the plea that the bust q
ess is wicked and nefariOus one. d
the morals and destructive f,
the health Of the people, knowing
lat their streets are paved aud their
lads with the tainted profits OF q
licked aud dangerous traffic IN which
icy are all conscious participants.
ut all this is beyond the pale Of dis :
lsslOn in the court here, though in a
llged In at length in the South Car a
ina cases.
Ii is sufficient To call attention To the
ct that even Judge Gary in the last c
Ise was compelled to defend the South C.
arolina law on the ground that "a Il
ajority Of voters of township may +
event the establishment Of a dispen-
ry" aud that ait is within the power n
the boards Of control to eliminate D
e profit feature ALTOGETHER No such /,
ivlleges are accorded in this act and
must be evident to every one that
ese features widely diilerentiate il
I'm the act under consideration. |
lieve that in this enlightened age, in
free country, there is ample OppOrlu- S
" afforded for the ADVOCATES Of {
Orality and true religion TO make f
cir legitimate and potent influence =
L and acknowledged through the :
ighty power of public opinion with :.
[ attempting 10 establish government a
)nOpOlies i'm the traffic in dangerous
d hurlful articles, and certainly when
ey seek TO override aud destroy pro.
'iOns put in our Constitution 10 safe
ard the rights Of all the people il is
e solemn duty Of the courts to defend
d uphold the Constitution when m
cir opinion such acts Of the legisa-
ra nnfna N conflict fharauifh