The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1915-04-07
No Seizure Provision.

AS to the right OF seizure OF IL
quor, there is question in my mind
as to whether or not there has been
any change whatsoever made in the
law in reference to the seizure of
whiskey. The 'gallon-a month act
makes no provision whatsoever as
to the seizure of whiskey which is
being conveyed or transported un-
lawfully, or which is being stored
unlawfully. I presume you are
familiar with your right of seizure
of contraband whiskey under tn.
law before the passage of the gal
Iona month act. Under the law
as it existed before that time liquor
in the possession of any person for
personal use or other lawful use
was exempt from seizure. The dis
pensary law as it existed before the
passage of the 'gallon-a-month' act
was very drastic in it's terms as to
all liquors in possession of any per-
son in this state, except such as
were purchased from the various
county dispensaries.
"The supreme court of this state,
however, in the case of Atkinson VS..
Express company, "a sc. 444,
said that all statutes in so far as
they attempted to prohibit the i'm
portation of liquor into this state
from another state for personal use
were unconstitutional when the
statutes were enacted. This being
the case there was no right under
the constitution of the United Sta
tes to make any seizure of any IL
quor which was for personal use or
some lawful purpose, such statutes
being unconstitutional.
"The Webb-Kenyon act, as passed
by congress, removes such constitu
tional restrictions, divested intoxi-
eating liquors of their interstate
commerce character and permitted
the various states to enact such laws
for the regulation and control of Ii
quor as each state might deem wise.
The passage of the Webb-Kenyon
act did not give life to the South
Carolina statutes which were un-
constitutional and from the decision
of the court in the Atkinson case,
which has been cited, the only man
ner in which such statutes would be
and could become c. force would
be by re-enactment by the general
assembly of South Carolina.
Statutes Still Dead.
GAS before indicated, all statutes,
including the right of seizure, re-
ferrirg to interstate shipments of
liquor for personal use, were uncon-
stitutional and void under the inter
state commerce clause of the United
States constitution. The 'gallon-a
month act does not re-enact such
statutes and l am of the opinion, un-
der the authorities cited, that no ad-
ditionsl right of seizure is conferred
by the 'gallon-a-mcnsh' act, and
that the only powers you have along
that line are SUCH as you had under
the dispensary statutes before the
enactment of the 'gallon-a-month'
act.
"Violators of the gallon a-month'
act may be indicted and convicted
for violating the provisions of the
act, but in my opinion no authority
is given for the seizure of liquor ex-
cept such authority as existed be-
fore the passage of that act.
''In reply to your fourth question,
l will say that section S25, code of
laws of 1912, volume 2, provided
that constables, sheriffs, ETC., could
examine the way bills or freight
books of common carriers. This
along with other provisions of the
dispensary law relating to shipments
of liquor from without the state for
personal use was unconstitutional
when enacted. 1t has been re-en-
acted by the 'gallon-a-month' act,
and l am therefore of the opinion
that you have no such right under
the 'gallon-a-month' act.
"The foregoing is the law as 1