The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1908-12-08

retail or wholesale druggist; nor the
use of the same by any regular licen-
se5 dental practitioner in his own
practice. "
On 18th October, 1908, a police
man Of Prosperity noticed a man
named Fred Valentine whom it would
seem he suspected Of carrying cocaine
on his person in violation Of SAIL or
dinance; and upon putting h!m un-
der arrest and taking him to the guard
house, match box: which he claimed
CO.. tanned matches was found on his
person, containing not matches bnt
coy twenty packages Of powder which
rpcn analysis provel to be cocaine.
Said Valentine, defendant-appellant
lie: ein, was then tried before Intend
ant Wheeler on the charge Of vlolat-
ing said ordinance in having said CO.
caine on his person. He offered no
testimony, and so did not seek to show
any of the matters Of defense, incum-
bent on him tc show if he could, as to
coming within the provisions Of the
ordinance as to having the drug on
the prescription Of a physician, &C.,
or that it had been brought from an
other State for personal use.
He was thereupon convicted and re-
ceived the maximum sentence, from
which he has appealed, and by his
appeal seeks to question the constitu-
tionality Of said ordinance, as we'll as
the suficiency Of the evidence.
This latter ground, however, was
not insisted upon at the hearing OF
the appeal and is therefore considered
as waived; as well it should be, in that
the evidence amply supports the con-
viction. The principal ground of OBJ
lection to the ordinance urged at the
hearing of the appeal was that con-
tanned in sections 3 and 5 of the
grounds Of appeal, to-wit: that the
ordinance is in conflict with the sta
tute law Of the State: that is that
the State statute referred to does not
make it an offense to carry cocaine on
the person.
This ground is untenable. 1t is true
| the State statute does not make it an
ofense to carry cocaine on the per-
son, and the ordinance does; but
| there is no conflict or inconsistency;
the ordinance merely goes step fur
ther.
In view Of the great and growing
Ievil Of the use of this pernicious drug,
the town council of Prosperity no
doubt found it necessary, in the exe--
else of its powers under Section 1899,
above referred to, to be keek for the
suppression Of the evil in order to
preserve the health, peace and order
of the people within its jurisdiction;
and that municipal corporation may
so go beyond the State law and am
plifv the State law and declare some
thing an ofense punishable under its
ordinances which is not punishable by
State law. has been conclusively. set
tied adversely to appellants conten-
tion in the. case Of Greenville VS..
Kemps. IS S. c., 427.
in that case the town of Greenville
had passed an ordinance making 1t al,
offense to gamble in a private room,
whereas the State statute as to gamb-
ling applied only to public place. A
conviction under the ordinance was
sustained, the court saying at page
1873: "Common experience shows
that city corporations find it neces-
sary for the peace and good order
! of the city to forbid the doing OF
many acts, under penalty, as to which
the legislature have not found it nec-
essary to legislate. The ordinance IS
certainly not in conflict with any Act
of the legislature. The State lesis-
: lation upon the subject. even if con-
strued as contended for by the appel
liant, and the municipal Legislation:
here in question, can both stand to-
! gether, and there is no conflict what
ever. The utmost tina; can be said
is that the municipal corporation. un-
der the authority vested in it by its
charter. has seen fit to make an act
done within the corporate limits q
criminal offense. when the legislature
has not seen fit to constitute such an
offense'
The grounds of appeal as to the al
legged unconstitutionality Of the ordi-
nance and conviction Hereunder. are.