The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1905-08-29

intoxicants. The liquor is to be test
ed by the chemist and declared to be
pure. The liquor is to be sold only
by the package. which cannot be
opened nor drunk where sold. The
sales can only be made in daytime.
Persons cannon be appointed on the
county board Of control who are
addicted to the use OF intoxicating
liquors. No person can be appointed
county dispenser who has ever been
adjudged guilty of violating the law
relating to Intoxicating liquors, nor
who is keeper OF restaurant or
place OF public amusement, nor who
is addicted to the use OF intoxicating
LIQUORS as a beverage.
The county dispenser shall exc
cute bond in the sum Of $1,000, upon
which suit for damages may be
BROUGHT for a violation OF the provls-
ions OF the act by wife, child, parent.
guardian, employer, or other person.
! \ majority Of the votes in town
ship may prevent the establishment
OF dispensary. The county dlspen-
ser shall take an oath therein pre-
scribed. A printed or written request
must be presented for permission to
purchase. The sale shall not be made
to a minor, person intoxicated, a
person in the habits of drinking to
excess, nor to a person unless known
10 the dispenser. 1t prevents the es-
tablishment Of club rooms where
LIQUORS are used. One Of the benetl-
cial results OF the law is brought
about by selling only for cash"
In the face OF this language how can
YOU declare that ''the state may take
control OF the traffic to police It, but
not to profit by it," On page 24o
we find this:
THE iudiciary,' says Mr.. Justice
MCGOWAN, in the case Of town coun-
ell vs. Presley, sgd S. C., page So
"cannot run race OF opinions upon
points of right reason and competency
with the law making power" Ihen
Mr.. Justice Gary added: 1.-The state
has right, through its own officers
in fact il is its primary duty-to en-
force its police regulations, whlcn
right inheres in government itself
and is paramount to any right inner
ent in citizenship. But, referrlngto the
foregoing objection as matter OF tact
if would not be as efficiently en-
forced by private individuals because
there would be the constant tenp1a-
+;on to make as large profit as pos
sible"
But referring TO the foregoing oD-
lection, (that the same results Woulu
be accomplished by allowing private
individuals to carry on the tra11lc}
os , matter Of fact. it would not be
as efficiently enforced by private m
d;viduals, because there would be the
constant temptation to make as large
profits as possible" Further on JUS
tice Garv adds: THE dispensary act
itself is an outgrowth OF dlssatls-
faction ON the part Of the people
with the manner in which the police
oowcr, when delegated, was abused.
(bv permitting those who ootalneo
the licenses to make as much money
as possible. }
Again, I desire to direct your at
ren1;on to the decision Of the supreme
corrt Of the United States in the case
of Vance vs. ". \. Vandercock Co.,
10 u S. page AL. in which the con-
stitutionality OF the dispensary law
was upheld by Our court OF last re-
sort 1T is argued, as the state law
there in question does not forbid but
on the contrary authorizes, the sale
Of intoxicants within the state; hence'
i is not police law, therefore not
enacted in the exercise OF the police
mower Of the state, and consequently
does not operate onthe sale oforiginaI
n,~kaoes within the state, but the
premise upon which these arguments