The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1909-09-08

How Many Realize That the Possession
or Liquor Even for Personal Use Is
Contrary to Law:


out dispensaries have In possession a
gallon, pint. or gill OF whiskey or other
intoxicant without violating the pro-
visions of the criminal code and SUBJ
Jecting himself Cor herself) to a fine
and imprisonment or both--the penal
~ for second,offense being imprson-
ment without alternative? Good law
yers and perhaps judges are answer
\ ing the question mo-" but II Is only
during the last few days that the peo-
pie seem to be awakening to this dras'
tic construction OF the law.
There are those who hold that the
Lexington or Sumter or BaInberg lady
who has CIR possession" quart of
cooking sherry Is no less amenable to
prosecution and punishment than is a
"blind tiger
In other words. the former dispen-
ssry acts were aimed at the manufac-
ture and sale Of intoxicants and not at
having them In possession.
The act passed at the last session OF
the general assembly and approved
March 2. 1909. after declaring alco-
holic liquors which II drunk to ex-
cess will produce intoxication'' to be
against the morals. good health and
safety Of the State" proceeds to say
"That II shall be unlawful for any
person. firm. corporation or associa
ton within this state to manufacture
s,,l. barter. exchange. receive. give
away to induce trade. deliver. store,
Keep In possession In this State. fur
nish at public places or otherwise dis
pose OF any malt. vinous. fermented,
brewed or other liquors and bever.
ages. or any compound or mixture
thereof which contains alcohol and
, Is used as beverage, and which II
drunk to excess will produce intoxics-
tion. except az hereinafter provided"
In the act II does not appear to be
hereinafter provided" that any per-
SON may keep in possession In this
state" one drop Of any alcoholic
liquor of q nature to make drunk
come" when imbibed to excess. except
In counties having dispensaries.
The penalty for violation of the act
contained In section IL and declaring
violation a misdemeanor Ia fine of
from 500 to $500 or Imprisonment
at hard labor Of from three to l2
months and for any second or subse
ouens offense. upon conviction. i'm
p-isonment OF from one to i've vars
az hard labor without any alternative
fne.
~ q picnic at Zarilne In Anderson
county = few days ago Messrs. J. r.
Blake of Greenwood and Legislator
Josh Ashley among others were
speakers.
The story goes that Mr.. Ashley
spoke with his accustomed fiery elo-
auence and pith for prohibition. and
Mr.. Blake later uttered sentiments
somewhat TO the contrary. Mr.. Blake
then read from the act already quo;-
ed.
Mr.. Ashley. In his gentle way. ques-
ticned the accuracy OF the inhibitions
as contained In the print read by Mr..
Blake
do you keep I'm possession within
this State any intoxicating liquors"
inquired Mr.. Blake of the Honea Path
delegation.
The Honea Path delegation. it is
said. admitted that the jug might not
be wholly dry, wherupon Mr.. Blake
read again the stern. inexorable con-
den.nation of the law.
Whether or not the Law and Order
Leagues in the dry counties will see
TO II that all the kitchen closets shall
be searched by ccnstabIes for cooking
sherry and trandied peaches remains
to be seen--or IL may be that astute
lawyers will prove that to keep In
possession" any Intoxicating liquors
within this State" IL not the law as
II Is written.
Had the "to keep in possession"
provision of the act been discussed
before the elections how would it
have affected the voting? was the
law understood by the voters?
Was IL understood that 10 give
away or "to receive" toddv in
dry county would be a misdemeanor
Tie state.