Fort Mill times. [volume] (Fort Mill, S.C.) 1892-current, 1909-09-02
The DRASTIC LAW
TO HAVE LIQUOR IS ALSO INHIB.
TIED BY ITS TERMS.
In Non-dispensary Counties the Pos
session of Intoxicants in Any
Quantity Said to be Unlawful.

Quantity Said to be Unlawful.
May a man Cor woman) living In
a South Carolina county which is
without dispensaries have in possess
sion gallon. pint, or gill of whis-
key or other intoxicants without vio-
lating the provisions of the criminal
code and subjecting himself Cor her
self) to fine and Imprisonment or
both-the penalty for a second Of
Tense being Imprisonment without
alternative?
The State says good lawyers and
perhaps judges are answering the
question no but it is only during
the last few days that the people
seem to be awakening to this dras-
tic construction OF the law. There
are those who hold that the Lexing-
ton or Sumter or Bamberg lady who
has "in possession" a quart of cook
Ing sherry Is no less amenable to
prosecution and punishment than is
blind tiger
In other words, the former dis
pensary acts were aimed at the man
| ufacture and sale of intoxicants and
not at having them In possession.
The act passed at the last session
of the general assembly and approx
ed March 2, 1909, after declaring
alcoholic liquors which IL drunk to
excess will produce intoxication" to
be against the morals, good health
60 a IL
say That it shall be unlawful for
any persons, firm, corporation of as
sociation within this State to manu-
facture, sell, barter, exchange, re-
ceive, give away to induce trade, de-
liver, store, keep in possession in this
State, furnish at public places or
otherwise dispose of any malt, vi
nous, fermented, brewed or other
liquors and beverages, or any com
pound or mixture thereof which con-
tains alcohol and is used as a bev-
erage. and which IL drunk to excess
will produce intoxication, except as
hereinafter provided"
in the act it does not appear to
he hereinafter provided" that any
herson may keep in possession in
this State" one drop OF any alcoholic
liquor OF ttuIe to make druak
c"ue" when lm, Led to excess, OK.
cept in counties having dispensaries.
The penalty for violation Of the
act contained in section IL and de-
claring violation a misdemeanor is
a fine OF from 500 to $500 or i'm
three to IL months and for any sec
ond or subsequent offense, upon con-
viction, imprisonment of from one to
flve years at hard labor without any
alternative fine.
AT picnic in Zarline in Ander
son county few days ago Messrs.
j. r. Blake OF Greenwood and Leg
islator Josh Ashley among others
were speakers.
The story goes that Mr.. Ashley
spoke with his accustomed fiery elo-
quence and pith for prohibition. and
Mr.. Blake later uttered sentiments
somewhat to the contrary. Mr.. Blake
then read from the act already quot
ed.
AShiCy, III his BeQIle way,
questioned the accuracy of the in
hibitions as contained in the print
read by Mr.. Blake.
DO you keep in possession within
this State any intoxicating liquors?"
inquired Mr.. Black of the Honea
Path delegation.
The Honea Path delegation, It is
said. admitted that the jug might
not be wholly dry, whereupon Mr..
| Black read again the stern, inexor-
able condemnation of the law.
Whether or not the Law and Or
der League in the dry counties will
see to Ii that all the kitchen closets
shall be searched by constables for
cooking sherry and branded peaches
| remains to be seen-or il may he
that astute lawyers will prove that
to keep in possession any intcx.
eating liquors within inis State"
Is not The ,Gw as it is written.
Had they ito 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
1t understood that to give away or
to receive" a toddy in a dry county
would be a misdemeanor?
SMASHES ALL RECORDS.