Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1911-07-04


tical Prohibitionists, of course, were
willing TO overlook this little weakness
for the sake of harmony and strength,
in which, of course, they showed
sense.
1t is a fact that the elimination of
the liquor war that was waged from
1890 up to a few years ago did not
hinge so much around the prohibition
question. as around the rottenness and
corruption which reeked around the
state dispensary. The state dispen-
sary was finally overthrown, not so
much in the interest of sobriety and
temperance, as because of the unli-
censed thievery that had been develop
ed around it.
1t would be pleasant to believe that
the dispensaries were voted out Of the
various counties solely because of the
growth of a healthy, simon pure pro-
hibition sentiment, but this Is not true.
When Judge Memminger therefore
interpreted the statute law in accord
ance with it's clearly stated meaning
and said that having whisky in pos
session was a violation of that law, he
raised a storm among the people, who,
though, prefering to the dispensaries
or bar-rooms, a system that allowed
them to buy liquor abroad and keep
it at home, could not reconcile them
70 he Of oh f4
get intoxicating liquor at ALL
There was a revolt Of sentiment
against the law itself rather than of
an honest Interpretation Of the law.
That revolt was strong enough to show
that such law is impossible so far
as the majority of the people of South
Carolina are concerned-certainly
impossible at this time.
So far as the correctness Of Judge
Memmingers Interpretation Of the
law Is concerned, we have not a shad-
ow Of doubt. We think the law really
means exactly what 1t says and that
meaning is as comprehended in Judge
Memminger's holding in the Sumter
case.
OF course, there are those who hold
that Judge Memminger's decision Is in
conflict with the interstate commerce
decision of the United States supreme
court, but according to our UNDER
standing there is a very important diff
ference that the United States court
would uphold. For instance, the right
of a state to prohibit the sale of H.
quor as a police measure has been up
held The state of South Carolina has
right to say that it's people shall
not own, store or drink intoxicating IL
quors within her borders. The United
States government would not try to
state of South Carolina has a right to
leave 1t to the counties to decide by a
majority vote whether or not they
shall permit the keeping Of liquor
within their respective limits, and
where under authority of the state, a
county sees proper by majority to
say that no liquor shall be kept in
the possession of its citizens, the will
of that majority should be upheld. We
believe the supreme court Of the United
States would uphold it.
Under the peculiar status of the
thing no matter what may have been
the intent Of the individual or indi-
viduals who put that silly provision In
the law, or of the general assembly,
there is no question of the fact that
the law Is now as the supreme court
says it is.
AS a matter Of fact, any law is not
what the general assembly tries to say;
but what the supreme court does say.
According to our view Of the matter,
Judge Memminger's holding was corr
rect, and we look upon the holding Of
the supreme court as holding Of i'll
advised expediency.
We do not think the law as it reads
is wise. We do not think the law
should undertake to say as it does
say, as plainly as the idea can be ex-
pressed in English words, that it is a
misdemeanor for one to have alcoholic
liquor in his possession. We say this
for the reason that we know that such
a law would not be obeyed. But this
is neither here nor there. To our mind
the proper thing for the supreme court
to have done was to have upheld the
law just as it is, and if the general as
sembly has made a mistake leave it
to the general assembly to correct that
mistake.