The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1913-05-21
CAN SHIP WHISkEY
FOR PERSONAL USE
Supreme Courts Holds that Webb Law
Does not Prohibit Shipping OF Whis-
key into this State for Personal use.

cupISlHe SourtS hOlUS tnlt w eDD Law
Does not Prohibit Shipping OF Whis-
key into this State for Personal use.
Columbia. May 15.-That there is
no statute by the State of South Caro-
lima prohibiting the Importation of
whiskey from another State for per-
sonal use and that the Webb act
gives the State the right to enact
such statute, if it so desires, is the
decision of the supreme court in de-
Gliding case testing the constitution
ality of the Webb act which was pass
ed by Congress, withdrawing the pro-
lection of interstate commerce from
whiskey shipments from one state to
aaother. The supreme ccsrt held
that the old dispensary act forbidding
the ordering of whiskey for personal
use from other. States, having been
declared unconstitutional, before the
passage of the Webb act, could not be
vitalized by the passage of the Webb
act
Intention Of Act.
1t is not the intention of the
Webb act to interfere with the pol
icy of the State in regard to the i'm
portation of liquor but merely to pro-
vide that the enforcement of a State
statute would not he interfcrcd with
or hampered by the interstate com
merce laws" says the decision.
In other words, the act in this
respect is passive, continues the de-
cision, while 1t is incumbent on the
State to enact legislation Of an ac-
tive nature If they are desirous of
prohibiting the Importation Of liquors
for personal use or other purposes.
but even if congress had undertaken
to give validity to an Unconstitutional
State statute it would have been be-
yond its powers.
Power of Legislature.
While the legislature can not pass
an act, validating the provisions of
the dispensary statute which we have
declared to be unconstitutional. so as
to give it retroactive eifec., il
nevertheless, has the power to ADOPT
statute with similar provisions hav-
ing prospective effect, prohibiting
alcoholic liquors from being import
ed into this State.
such statute would not contra
Vene any provision of the Unisnd
States constitution. AS we have al
ready said, the recent act of congress
divests intoxicating liquors of their
interstate commerce character and
invests the respective States with
power either to prohibit the importa-
ton absolutely or allow it only for
sale and use throubh dispensary
me classification of the counties, so
as to allow the sale Of liquor in some
of them while it is not prohibited in
others, would not be violative of sec
tlon | OF the 14th amendment to the
constitution of the United States
which provides that no State shall
deny TO any person within its iuris-
diction the ull protection of the
laws"
'uSc FROM tlcnlnnQ.
The case arose in Richland county
through w. W. Atkinson hraging
suit to secure an injunction against
the Southern Express Company from
enforcing its order refusing to deliver
shipments of whiskey in South Car
olina for personal use. The injunc-
ton was granted by the court, the
decision being written by Chief Jus
tice Gary and concurred in by AS
sociate Justices Woods, Hydrick and
Watts. Associate Justice Fraser says:
Il concede that the above statement
so strongly made is correct, but
dissent from the judgment The reg
ulation complained of in the petition
refers exclusively to interstate com
merce, and think this court has no
Jurisdiction to interfere"
test case was brought under the
same conditions in Kershaw county
and the court granted the injunction
in this case on the same grounds as
that from Richland The State.
Enrd ne UNlo,,I.