Case Name: THE STATE v. DIX ET AL.; THE STATE v. BOYNTON; THE STATE v. GRAY
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1921-04-01
Citations: 115 S.C. 529
Docket Number: 10597
Parties: THE STATE v. DIX ET AL. THE STATE v. BOYNTON THE STATE v. GRAY
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 115
Pages: 529–530

Head Matter:
10597.
THE STATE v. DIX ET AL. THE STATE v. BOYNTON THE STATE v. GRAY
(106 S. E. 767)
Before W- C. Cothran, Special Judge, Allendale, special June term, 1920, and Rice, J-, Allendale, June term, 1920. Three cases tried together.
Appeal dismissed.
Indictment against Cattie Dix, Lillie Stoney and Jim Harley, Capers Boynton and Ossie Gray for violation of the prohibition law. From overruling of demurrers to the indictments, and the refusal to quash the indictments, the defendants appeal.
Mr. Tas. M. Patterson, for appellants,
cites: The Act of 1917 (30 Stats. 69, 169) was repealed by the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment (253 U. S. 350, 64 L. Ed. 946, 40 Sup. Ct. 486.) And the clause in that amendment permitting the States to pass “appropriate legislation” to enforce it does not include the Act of ipiy. The Federal Constitution is a direct grant and the Eighteenth Amendment must be construed to be prospective: 8 Cyc. 731; 11 S. C. 71. Act of Congress cannot validate an unconstitutional statute: 94 S. C. 444. Concession of power to States is futile: 253 U. S. 35Ó.
Robert L. Gunter, Solicitor, for respondent.
Oral argument.
April 1, 1921.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chies Justice Gary,
For the reasons stated in the case of the State v. Bill Hartley, 115 S. C. 523, 106 S. E. 766, in which the opinion has just been filed, the appeal in each of said cases is dismissed.