The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1919-05-07
Statute Of State
Takes Precedenc
Sumter Recorder Asks Wolfe as
to Extract law

g Columbia, May Is. N. Wolfe, at
torney general, addressed ietse'
Yesterday to Horace Hardy OF Sumter
emphasizing that where there was
conflict between city ordinances and
the State statute relative to the sale
of extracts and other compounds USED
as intoxicants, the State law takes
precedence. Mr.. HARDY is city record
er in Sumter. The letter follows:
wbi,a it does not come within the
snhere of the duties Of this Office to
advise other than State officials, and
: y11,iIe at all times It is my personal
dae;re 80 render such courtesies to
citizens generally as may be consist
ent with the best policy Of my admin
) istration, I believe that in instances
s1,ch as. this, there need be no occasion
for embarrassment and with the dis
finct reservation that such advice as
may be given is without prejudice to
either side, and offered for what it
NAV he worth, I take pleasure in call
ing your attention to the proviso in
Section 1894, Volume 1, of the Code
Of 1912, in reference to city ordi-
nances, and providing it3such rules, by
laws and ordinances shall not be in
consistent with the laws of this
State. .
..T also call attention to a similar
IN Subdivision Of Section SO, of Vol
sume II OF the Criminal Code of 1912.
This proviso is that s..such ordinances,
.s.1 1r,e,- ~ of;o,,e ho NOT
contrary to the laws Of the State.
The general principle obtaining in
the case Of municipal ordinances that
they must harmonic with the State
law. In the case of the State Us.
sYonng, II Kansas, page .414, cited in
the foot note on page: 1920, McQuillin
son municipal corporations writes:
a0rdinances to be valid must OBJ
serve the requirements Of the State
statute on the same subject
In the case of Newton vs. Belzer,
.143 Mass. 593, reported in 10 n! E.,
page 4&4, and N the case of Com
nonwealth VS.. Roy, 40 Mass. 432. re-
ported in N. E., page 814, the court
held that ST an ordinance is broader
than the statute, it is void"
Tie mere fact that the proviso
heretofore referred to is found in
stilat section of the code, namely, Sec
ton 1894, comforting upon. a munich
pality the right to make certain ordi-
nances pertaining to the police regu-
5lations Of the municipality, lends force
to the position that an ordinance
which attempts to go beyond the State
statute upon the same subject is con-
trary or inconsistent Herewith, and
to such an extent is Of no effect. ;.
Suppose we take for illustration
the so-called quart month" law,
which does not require a physician s
certificate, although certain judges of
probate require this Of their own
Initiative. Suppose an ordinance were
to embody this section Of the statute
and exceed its requirements by stipu-
lating that the physicians certificate
must be produced before being grant
ed the permit, it is respectfully sub
c1nstted that this portion OF the ordi--
nance would be of no effect, inasmuch
as it superseded the State law, and I
take the same position relative to your
so-called ordinance pertaining to
extracts.
am herewith sending you copy
Sof the act of the general assembly,
approved March 10, 1919. which, Of
course, you have access to, and with
which you are familiar.