The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1908-03-04
CHARLESTON LIQUOR PROBLEM.
INTERESTING DISCUSSION RY
JUDNE AND ATTORNEYS.
Charged That Charleston City Council
Was Practically Granting Licenses
to Sell WhislSey and ConDived at
Violation Of Law.

I'D sell Wh1SKey and COnDiYed at
Violation of Law.
Charleston, Feb. 27.-In a discus
sion OF the policy Of the dispensary
law, arising from the case of ]. F..
Honron, in the court of General Ses-
sions today, between the attorneys for
the defense, Messrs. Logan and
Grace, and Judge Hydrick. during the
arguments by tho defense, a frank
and somewhat sensational statement
of the situation of the enforcement of
the law in Charleston was made oy
the attorneys. and equally striking
statements Of the attitude Of the
court on this question We're made by
Judge Hydrick. The defendant in the
case was declared not guilty by the
jury.
In opening for the defense .Attor-
ney Logan said that the dispensary
law was conceived in iniquity. an6
this brought on an interruption on
the part Of Judge Hydrick to the ef.
feet that he could not allow the pol
icy Of the law to be treated of hy
counsel in an address to the jury.
Later on, Attorney Grace. in order
to present mitigating circumstances
in eavor OF. the defendant. brought to
view a slip cf paper, one Of the 20
ticcs sent out by the police to alleged
violators of the dispensary law. re4
quiring him to appear before the re-
cordcr to answer charge OF violating
the law and fixing the bail at SEQ.
This is declared TO show that city
council connived at the violation Of
the law by making the amount to be
forfeiteds practically "a license to sell
liquor.
Judge Hydrick replied to this sta te-
ment that il the grand jury pres cntcd
city council or the members thereof
for aiding. abetting or assisting in the
illegal selling of liquor in this city. and
the petit jury convicted, he would
sentence. the defendants as he would
anybody convicted before nin,. II.
said thai the slip Of paLer shown him
appeared to him to be evidence that
city council was rather. enforcing the
law than connivine at its violation. I.
It was brought out previously to
these statements by counsel that it
was notorious fact that t,he senti-
ment Of this community was against
tho enforcement os the disptns:,ry
law and for the protection Of its vio-
lators. Judge Hydrick then said that
IL it were shown in the testimony of
any case of this sort either directly or
indirectly that the sentiment Of the
community was such that man who
violated the dispensary law did so
With consciousness that he, was not
doing an act condemned by public
sentiment here this fact would be con-
:idered very largely by the rCurt.
where conviction was secured. and
it was the duty Of thu court to SEN
terce him.
Ju6ek Hydrick maintained the aiti-
tude that 1t was not in his province
to consider whether or not the law
were popular or unpopular. He
would MT allow the minds of the jury
to be influenced by discussion of the
coed or bad qualities Of a. law. He
could not allow criticism Of the dis
pensary law to hn made to the Jury by
counsel before him.
The Case, in que>tion soday chargAd
that ]. F. Hcffron sold and stored H.
quor in this city illegally. There were
no witnesses put up by the defense
Chief Constable Cureton and two oi
his const,bles, Bell and Batcnan, tes-
tilted for the prosecution. They told
If raiding Heffron's place and buying
liquor there. Their testimony was
ridiculed by the attorneysy for the
Defense The indictment was criti-
cised, and it was declared that the
State has by no means proved its
grounds Of prosecution. The jury, af-
ter about an hours deliberation,
brought in a verdict Of not guilty.
The manner in which the legisla-
ture has assumed that the uneXpired