Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1921-04-06
THE LIQUOR vIoLAToRs
ARE GIVEN HARD BLOW

That the 18th amendment to the
federal constitution or the Volstead
act, does not repeal the existing
statutes of the several states and
that a violator of the prohibition
laws in South Carolina may be tried
in both the state and federal courts
on any one and same violation is
court, decision to this effect being
the opinion of the state supreme
handed down yesterday in the case
cf the state, respondent, VS.. Bill
Hartley, appellant.
Hartley was tried and convicted
of violating state statute on liquor
in Barnwell county. He appealed to
the supreme court, contending that
the 18th amendment superseded and
repealed the state statute.
By the ruling o. the court, the
opinion written by Chief Justice
Gary, a man may be tried in a
mayors or city court for ne viola
ton of the whiskey la:,s. He then
can be tried by the state, courts on
the same charge and when the state
has finished he can be tried by the
federal court for the same violation,
one and the same incident. The de
cision of the court will have far
reaching effect, number of appeals
being before the court at the time,
which will automatically be dismiss
ed by this opinion.
"This defendant was convicted on
charge of manufacturing and hav-
ing in his possession of liquor un-
lawfully" the supreme court says.
''The question in the case is whether
the statutes of this state in regards
to the manufacture, sale and trans
portation of liquors for beverage
purposes were repealed by the 18th
amendment" the court continues.
The court cites two state statutes
prohibiting the manufacture, sale
and transportation of liquors, etc.,
these having been passed in 1917.
"The question under consideration
is not whether are certain provisions
therein that render these statutes
unconstitutional on the ground that
they are repugnant to the 18th
amendment, but whether they were
repealed by the 18th amendment" "
the court says and then quotes the
first two sections of the amend
ment to the United States constitu-
ton.
The second section says that con-,
gress and the several states shall
have concurrent power to enforce
the amendment by appropriate legis-
lation. The court holds that this
amendment cannot be made effect
i've by the several states unless they
enact statutes making the sale, man
ufacture, transportation, ETC., of Ii
quors an offense against the state.
"The amendment contemplates in
dependent legislation, both on the
part of congress and the several
states, and the constitutionality of
state statute must be determined
alone by resort to the provisions of
the amendment" the court says. The
court here recites recent decision
of another court.
"There is nothing in the amend
ment indicating an intention to re-
peal or supercede the legislation of
the several states, whenever the en-
forcement of such legislation would
aid in carrying into effect the pro-
visions of the amendment. The
court concludes by saying that the
only question before it is whether or
not the 18th amendment repealed
existing legislation in the state and
adds, whether the statutes under
which the defendant was convicted
contained provisions that render
them unconstitutional will be deter
mined when that question properly
arises" The appeal is then dis
missed.-The State.