The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1921-04-06
High Tribunal Says State Laws Not
Repealed or Superseded by Fed
eral Amendment.

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 violation of the prohibition
laws in South Carolina may be tried
in both the state and federal courts
on any one and same violation is
the opinion of the state supreme
! court, decision to this effect being
the state. respondent, VS.. Bill Hart
, ley, appellant.
Hartley was tried and convicted of
violating q state statute on liquor
in Barnwell county He appealed to
the supreme court, contcnding that
the 18th amendment superseded and
repealed the state statutes. The
court dismisses the appeal and says
a that the amendment does not repeal
. the state statutes.
BY the ruling of the court, the
opinion written by Chief Justice
Gary a man may be tried in mayors
whiskcy laws. He then can be tried
t.by the state court on the same charge
Nand when the state has finished he
can be tried by the federal court for
the same violation, one and the same
incident The decision of the court
will have a far reaching effect, a
number of appeals being before the
court at this time which will auto
matically be dismissed by this opin-
ion.
"This defendant was convicted on
a charge of manufacturing and hav-
Hng in his possession Of liquor un-
lawfully the supreme court says
"Fhe 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, purposes were repealed by the 18th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 statu .es
prohibiting the sale, manufacture and
transportation Of liquors, etc, these
having been passed in 1917. "The
question under consideration is not
} whether are certain provisions there
"A IN that render these statutes mcon-
Institutional on the ground that they
, are ,repugnant to the 18th amend
'Fment, but whether they were repeal
ed by the 18th amendment" the court
says and then quotes the first two
sections of the amendment to the
United States constitution.
The second section says that con-
gress and the several states shall
have concurrent power to enforce the
amendment by appropriate legisla
ton. The court holds that this
amendment can not be made effective
aby the several states unless they en-
act statutes making the sale, manu-
facture, transportation, etc, Of IL
quors an offensc against the state.
,"The amendment contcmpIates indie
pendent 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 cites a recent decision of
another court.
"There is nothing in the amend
mcnt indicating an intention to re-
i peal or supercedc 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
D only question before it is whether or
' iiot the 18TH amendment repealed ex-
listing legislation in the state and
s(dds. whether the statutes under
which the defendant was convicted
contained provisions that render them
.unconstitutiona will be determined
when that question properly arises
The appeal is then dismissed.