The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1916-01-28
to assume the contrary.

NAV be restricted and and exclusive than
others but the main object and purpose OF all SAID by
Justice Somervlle in Carts 81 Ma. South IS l. r.
A. 3oS is to promote temperance and prevent drunkenness
The mode adopted to accomplish this end is the prevention OF
the sale the giving away other disposition of Intoxicating
LIQUORS The e7U TO be ycucdcd is the of Intoxicating
Quoys as be5rrugc rather than ingredient of med-
cine and article OF toilet for culinary purposes and the
object of the law in this particular must not be lost sight OF
in its interpretation
This utterance is reafrmed by the Supreme Court of
Alabama in Southern Express Co. WiiHe (Aa), 90 so
Rep. 652
In State {. Phillips OIiss) 81 So Rep 651 the Court
said:
IF the object of prohibition of the sale of Intoxicating
lquors not to byc5e as far as may BE- the drinking Of such
liquors. then is difficult to justify the lo7vS prohibiting the
sc OF course the typical public saloon demorazng but
there would be no practical difficulties the way Of regu-
anp the saloon as to minimize all OF the evils whctoW from
the saloon except the evils which flow from the drinking OF
intoxicating beverages II it is not the health,
morals welfare and peace OF the public for and women
to drink alcoholic liquors. would that the public could
have no interest in prohibiting the sale The ultimate purpose
and end OF prohibition IS brc5en the OF liquor
bezrogc This ultimate end is approaching step by step and
when the pepondcrant and prevailing morality OF the nation
believes that the public welfare demands the final step the
way will be found to accomplish the end
In Vest Virginia g. 4dams Er. Co., 21o Fed. 1884, the
same thought is thus expressed:
In trying to comprehend the legislative purpose in proh
bon statutes it is important remember that the ultimate
end sought in prohibition legislation is not the prevention Or
restriction the sale Of ntoxcan b the Pre7eHtloH
of their consumption as be5eyage The sale being the most
usual and obvious means by which drinking accomplished
the legislation often directed against the SALE But
lis upon the recognized evil of individual consumption as
beverage that the right OF State under its police power rests
to enact probve legislation and in the exercise OF that right
it can not be denied that the State may egislate not only
against acts which would constitute sale at common law but
against others acts within its bores such deliveries by
common carriers which tend to defeat weaken its public
policy v preventing the consumption of liquor BEVERAGE
NGane) 1T common knowledge that it the use OF
Intoxicating liquors beverage that is deemed harmful and
is the mischief sought be prevented by the legislation The
prohibition of the sale and keeping for sale of intoxicating
liquors is only means The end sought for is the prevention
or at least the dmnution of the drinking of intoxicating liquors
by the people of the State The legislation upon the subject
including the in question: shall be construed to further
that end so far as the language without bending either way
fairly allows.
Maine o. Bass Pub Co. (Le), II Att, 894, 20 L. R. A.
! (NS) 4o5, 1876.
California; 1T can not for moment be doubted that
the great ultimate object of all legislation the subject of in
oxcatng liquors obviously of the statute in question:
reduce to the lowest limit the individual and consumption
of such liquors as beverages and thus diminish ntemperance
+ Indeed it is before ntimaed, within the constl-
utiona rights of the Legislature in the exercise OF the police
power of the State establish any regulation 7Uc may tend
to reno5e e7ery temptation TO inocans as beverages
tudey any circumstances.
Golden s Co. a. JUSTICES Court (Cal.), 40 Pac 40.
In Cro7eEev a. Christensen I37 U. S. 81, was urged that
if injury followed the of liquors beverage was VOLT
arv inflicted confined the party oendng and hence
the sale should be without restriction upon the theory that
what man shall drink equally with what he shall eat IS
properly matter for egsaon but the Court did not
accept the suggestion sound Mr. Justice Field speaking tor
the Court, saying
"There is in this position assumption of fact 5cch
does not ei that 70e the liquors taken III erceSS the
injuries are confined to the party offending The injury 1t
true first falls upon him in his health which the habit un-
dernne in his morals which weakens and III the self
abasement which it creates But leads to neglect OF
business and of property and general demoralzaon
it affects those ho are immediately connected 7Vih and de-
pendent upon him.
The case of Mugler Kansas I23 U. S. 623 is clearly