Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

One Gallon a A Befc r> X* 7*x.. KsUIlSlllULlVJIUllljy VI 1 General Peeples and era1 Dominick in the haustive Review c of All the Stat Bearing c (Continued obedience to law; to disturb of everv grade. Such corn > o experience and history of mz that no person should acqu: a purpose, there would be had violated any provision o In Hcytvard v. Hcndcrsi Am. iSt. Rep. 384, the Cour making penal the buying of without express legislative a welfare clause of its charter since the Legislature of the of forbidding the buying o question now under considt the Court, said: "It may be that the State mrrrhaisP of whiskev : that th lutely the sale of whiskey is i this Court or in the Supreme furthermore, "It may be con State, n withstanding his : holic liquors, can under its right of the owner of said same within the limits of tl stances be a practical confis power to declare that no p< possession of such propert Laws prohibiting the sale c tional, upon the ground that of the public at large, and is evil, is of such a nature thai to the peace and good ordei ot individuals, if this oe t the State might enact any la the traffic. A law prohibit enforced, prohibit the buyin the purchase would likewise oi the sale, therefore, puts course, a law making penal make penal the buying; but if enforced, would be to prol follow, therefore, that the 5 already gone, and make per In So. Ex. Co. v. High Chief Justice Clark, in a cor "There is nothing in tl which prohibits the people of the Legislature, to prohibit liquors even solely for one's v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, it equally prohibit the importa for his own use; and a forth to bring in or import such is for the consignee's own u 5.?STATE DECISIONS, SUSTAI ARE CONTRARY TO APP OF A CITIZEN TO RECE ' SONAL USE. ' AT The Legislature of Alab law, effective February 8th the following provision: "Section 12. That it shal or rornnration. ( T "l to rerei\ r 7 \ - / ? sess or to have in possessioi or more places, and whether more than one-half gallon o two gallons of vinous liquc malted liquors, when in keg in bottles, or more than on< or fermented liquors beyom 1 1* to receive, accept delivery < more than one gallon of spi vinous liquors, or more th; including beer and ale wh twenty pints in bottles, or m fermented or intoxicating 1 within any four consecutive places." The statute applies to li< whence obtained. This statute was assaile< of Pensacola, Florida, who s press Company to receive, Alabama, six quarts of whis The Supreme Court of Company properly refused because it was intended to be in violation of the limitatioi liquors at one time, prescribe ti ?v./i'M fV J lie WI1U1C V/UU1 L litiU U it offended no provisions of stitution. The opinion cont the questions involved, and Express Co. v. Whittle (A1 j^^^^^Co^H^careful readin Month Law I > *? >-? Aflflf lJUpiCIHC V/l/Uf i Lau; Argued by Attorneyi Assistant Attorney Genf Supreme Court?An Ex)f the Prohibition Law es and Cities Cases m the Subject. I From Last Issue.) I ) the peace, and to multiply crimes :lusions would be justified by the in. If a Legislature should declare ire any. property in them for such no occasion for complaint that it f the Constitution." m, 109 Ga. 373, 47 L. R. A. 36, 77 t dealt with a municipal ordinance alcoholic liquor. It was held that uthority, the city under the general could not enact such an ordinance. State had never adopted the policy f such liquor. And yet, upon the TnH.cre Cobb, sneaking" for " ~ * ) J ?5 - 1 i ^ : would have a right to prohibit the e State has a right to prohibit abso.10 longer an open question either in Court of the United States." And tended with great force, that if the recognized property right in alcopolice power entirely destroy the lioncvre +j-i caII nr Hisnnsf1 nf th^ I IA| IA.KJ k O t W dVii v/ a w - - - - ~ ie State, which would in some in;cation of the property, it has the ?rson shall by purchase come into y within the limits of the State. >f whiskey are upheld as constituits sale is against the best interest a business which, if not inherently t its presence is a constant menace of society, as well as the welfare rue, it would seem to follow that w which would effectually proniDit ing the sale would, if effectually tg; and so also, the prohibition of prohibit the sale. The prohibition ! a ban upon the entire traffic. Of the sale would not, without more, the practical effect of such a law, bibit the buying. It would seem to Jtate might go further than it has -1 ..l . t ? lai trie ouyiiig. Point (N. C.), 83 S. E. 254, 255, lcurring opinion, said: be State or Federal Constitution : North Carolina, speaking- through the manufacture of intoxicating own use. This is held in Mugler following that the Legislature can * 1 tion ot sucn liquors Dy any person ori, it can forbid a common carrier liquors, irrespective or whether it se or not." NING RECENT STATE LAWS, WHICH ELLA NT'S CONTENTION AS TO RIGHT IIVE AND POSSESS LIQUORS FOR PER>ABAMA. ama at its recent session passed a , 1915> containing, among others, % 1 be unlawful for any person, firm, re or accept delivery of, or to pos1 at any one time, whether in one in nriVinal nacka^es or otherwise. ?5 X O ~ ' f spirituous liquors, or more than >rs, or more than five gallons of ;S, or more than sixty pints when * gallon of any other intoxicating d those thus enumerated; or (2) >f, possess or have in possession, rtuous liquors, or four gallons of iti rrollanc m a 1 f Arl liniir^rc i* I I ^ Uiivyno A. IliUIiVU ilVjUVA en in kegs, or one hundred and ;ore than two gallons of any other iquors beyond those enumerated, : weeks, whether in one or more ^uors no matter when, how, or i by one Whittle, a liquor dealer ought to compel the Southern Exfor delivery jn dry territory in key for personal use. Alabama held that the Express to accept the same for shipment, received by the consignee, Farmer, i of one-half gallon of spirituous :d by the terms of said iSection 12. lat Section 12 was valid, and that C1UICI UIC OLdLC Ui i'CUUdi ains an elaborate consideration of the case is reported as Southern a.V. 69 So. Reo. 652. We invite and extract from it the following: "It tiie righ* at common law to 1 ing- liquor for one's own personal us< rials, by the application of one's ow + nr'n A11 <->n In- innrAnri'if^ 1 Am c 11 f inn 1V1 U1UUV.11 LJ V I KSjS 1 1CI L\, IV^IOiailUll as was expressly ruled in Mttglcr v. K logically or soundly asserted that th more than a specified quantity at one by statute: especially when the sal (intoxicants is lorDiticten in tne ^tatc | perance and to suppress the evils oi its power upon one of the means' us perance, viz., the traffic therein; or, from our Marx and Carl cases (ante ent in 'the use of intoxicating liqu nnw^r rnnfirmed in MUP"/Cr i\ Kan. t ? ? o prehend the lesser manifestation of 2 the quantity to be received or poss territory' in the State. Furthermo but the assertion of a self-evident tr may be validly forbidden to sell h another, that other may be validly f( I from him; and, it one may be vali i necessarily validly forbidden to deli\ that other may be validly forbidden the seller, the prohibitions stated wo ; upon his property, but not in the S' | infringing any constitutional right j case, supra) : whereas, in the latter bitions would operate in anticipation the interest of the public welfare as < tv, the law-makers, with Nwhich the stances rests?to acquire a property i a defined quantity at one time." The Supreme Court of Alabama as a means to the enforcement of tl the sale of liquors. After citing1 w Patsonc v. Pcnn., 232 U. S. 138, ar U. iS. 31, and Laivton v Steele, 152 ' cnccin 1 j r\+ cerfoin nprcnn^l nrrvnprtv ^ OC'OOt-LZ/f VJL nil |yvi uviiu* Jfyi \/|/VA vy hibited as a means to the accamplisl purpose. McClellan, Justice, speaking for ther to say: "In Delam-ater v. South Dakota, 2 lowed and applied by this Court in script (68 So. Rep. 993)?the Sup: enactment forbidding the solicitation by a non-resident of the State. T Moog v. State, 145 Ala, 75, sustair ! to residents of the State. The rem ! viz., the use of intoxicants as a bev< : include the act of soliciting- orders, illustrates the authorized progress r exercise of the police power by the by the Courts of the fact that all i ancillary and reasonably related to t nwte temperance and to suppress t j whether through the prohibition o: means to that end or not. can not b any idea that constitutional rights invaded." 9 This case is also interesting in th the case of Ridge v. City of Bessemei cases relied upon by appellant's co former hearing), was not an auth of the Alabama statute, and the Co , said case was not a governing autf being that the case involved the or and not a statute ot the btate, tne 01 c in advance of any State statute thei j The Supreme Court of Alabam; majority view in State v. Williams, ] being in the opinion of the Court un, The Court also declared its deci 159 Ala., to be opposed to the doc Gilman, 33 W. Va. 146. The State of Georgia has also ( in principle with the Alabama statuti sion of liquors; the Georgia law u ist, 1916. NORTH CAROL] In March, 1915, the General As; enacted a statute, Section I of \vh: anv person whatsoever to deliver, i means whatsoever, for hire or otherv ages, at one time, from a point withi any person, firm, or corporation in or vinous liquors or intoxicating bit than one quart, or any malt liquors i five gallons; and by Sections 2 and 3 r\ofo/-\n fit-m or- rnrnnMtinn of nnp pKtovu, mia, wx packages, to receive at any point wi her use, or for the use of any person spirituous or vinous liquors or intox tity greater than one quart, or any i greater than five gallons, or within This statute has been unanimously Court of North Carolina in the case decided December ist, 1915, not y in that case, after sustaining the Wet approved and followed the Alabama Whittle, supra, and quoted from th the paragraph from the Whittle cr set forth. The case of Williams v. State, relied on as an authority against th< but the court declared that the questic or decided in the Williams case; a Court of North Carolina removed s authority for the appellant's contentio The Williams .case itself was dec and the Supreme Court of Missies i nanufacture an intoxicate, out of one's own mate11 personal effort, mav be under the police power, ransas, supra, it can not be e receipt or possession of time may not be forbidden e or other disposition of i's effort to promote tem : intemperance by visiting Lially productive of intemas has been before quoted ), to remedy the evil presors as a beverage.' The sas must necessarily com i like power, by regulating essed at one time in 'dry re, it would appear to be uth to say: that since one tis intoxicating liquors to )rbidden to buy the article dly forbidden to sell, and ver the article, to another, to accept delivery. As to ii"M nnontp unnn Vnm anrl ense or with the effect of or immunity. (Dorman's case, the buyer, the prohii, qualifying his right?in determined by the authoridecision in such circumnterest in the article above also considered the statute ie Prohibition law against ith approval the cases of id Sib v. Hcsterberg, 211 U. S. 133, in which pos,vas held to be validly proliment of an ulterior valid the Court, proceeded fur05 U. S. 93.?recently folState v Delava, in Manureme Court vindicated an 1 of orders for intoxicants his Court had already in led such a law as applied iedy tor an admitted evil, ^rage, was found to fairly The insistence strikingly nanifested by and for the State, and the recognition commands or prohibitions he State's purpose to pro1he evils of intemperance, f the traffic as the chief e thwarted or annulled on are thereby violated or at the Court declared that 164. Ala. 559 (one of the unsel in his brief on the ority against the validity urt gave the reasons why lority, one of the reasons dinance of a municipality dinance going beyond and 1 of force. 1 also disaDDroved of the - t i .46 N. C. 618, the decision sound. sion in Williams v. State, trine of West Virginia v macted a statute identical 2 as to receipt and posses:ill become effective May [NA. sembly of North Carolina ich made it unlawful for n any manner or by any vise, in one or more packn or without the .State, to the State, any spirituous ters in a quantity greater in a quantity greater than made it unlawful for any time or in one of more thin the State, for his or , firm, or corporation, any :icating bitters in a quannalt liquors in a quantity fifteen days. sustained by the Supreme of Glenn v. So. Ex. Co., et reported. The Court ib-Kenvon Law, expressly decision of So. Ex. Co. v. e opinion, with approval, ise which is hereinabove 146 N. C. 618, has been e validity of said statute, >n involved was not raised n<-1 +ViatpIyi7 +Via ^tinrpmf rilU bi4V> VAAAV aid Williams case as any n upon the present record. ;ided by a divided Couj^ ippi in?j|aEii ! (Miss.), 67 So. Rep. 651, expre ; of Chief Justice Clark in that 'Justice expressed himself as f "In limiting" each person to ; use (tor the law permits 110 sa gardly. Besides, if the maim one's own use and out of one's I county, can be forbidden by st | stitution, vvtiv can not tne 1: i across the county line, in a gr< ! per day, even for one's own j power ? The truth is that, th< ! of the subjeel, the limitations i dom and sound judgment of review by the people, not by tl In Van Winkle v. State ( Court of that 'State considere( j that involved in Williams v. I | lowing words: "That it shal rrVif o V_dl i V , Uixng, iicivv. uiuu^m, & or malt liquors, from one poi ; into Local Option territory wj j one gallon, within the space j Court held that the act did n j the privileges guaranteed to cr ment to the Federal Constitut nart of the ooinion bv the Cou r 1 - . j the statute, in State v. Gner, I eral Sessions in the case refe upon the subject, with the 1; demonstrated the validity of i SOUTH I On February 20, iqi^, th? enacted a statute containing th "Section I. Be it enacted iState of South Carolina that i son, firm, corporation, or comp any intoxicating liquors from this State, or from one point purpose of delivery, or to deln corporation, or company withii son, corporation, or company of any spirituous, vinous, fer erages containing more than ( hers, its, or their own use, or firm, or corporation, except as "Section 2. Any person 1 point without the- State not e calendar month, for his or her ous, fermented or malt liquors "Section 7. Any person v this Act shall be subject' to a f dollars or imprisonment for no in the discretion of the Court.' This statute is now to be think a previous decision in conclusion that the statute wi regulation, bringing into ope 1 against liquor proposed to be excess ot tne statutory' quanin In Atkinson v. Southern E, 48 L. R. A? (N$) 439, the C< South Carolina had the powe prospective effect of "prohibit imported into this State. Su vene any provision of the Un: have already said, the -recent eating liquors of their intersta spective States with the powe absolutely or to allow it on] dispensary." ID, In Ex parte Crane (Idaho) involved the validity of a stati for any person to import, ship ? -? OtlTT VI ildVC ill 1113 p\JOOV.OJlV/ii, anj the Act provided, or to have ii liquors of any kind for any us? been obtained and is so posse by the Act. It was agreed that the peti sion in Latah County, a Pre liquor for his own use, and no It was contended that tne s i of the Fourteenth Amendmei tion, that it was not a reasona of the State, and that it violate tution as follows"No person or property, without due proce Alter citing, among otner Hesterbcrg, 211 U. ;S. 31, and Tonic Co. v. Lynch, 226 U. S. ] 123 U. S. 623, the Court then that had been cited against t! said "will disclose more of ai cnrh teaisjlation as this than ?? ? Courts may be invoked to defe; Exparte Wilson, 6 Okl, Cr. Com. v. Campbell, 133 Ky. (NS) 172. State v. Gihnan, 33 W. Va (NS) 847. O l Ult' v. vv wiiurrij); ii. (NS) 299Thereupon the Court expre: "Probably the author of no tate in holding that the sale of hibited as a legitimate exercis such a law would not abridge ; ties of the citizens in such a wa privision. Still it must be adr such liquor 'can by no possAi ssetl a preference for the opinion case, wherein the learned Chief ollows: a half gallon per day for his own 1\.1 t i , . j ! iej tne legislature was not nig- j ifacture, though exclusively for i ; own apples and peaches, in the | atute without breaking the Con- ! mportation of the same article j ~ ~ L iftr fh^ o rro 11 tn , CcllCi <J[UdiiLii_y man a naii ganun use, be prohibited by the same i Legislature having jurisdiction upon its exercise rest in the wisthe Legislature, subject only to le Courts." T\~1 \ /-v ' A +1 ->QT ^nnrpmp LJCl.J yi uiv w n v1 a statute almost identical with ^tate, 146 N. C. 618, in the fol1 be unlawful for any person to my quantity of spirituous, vinous, nt within the State of Delaware thin the caiH State, nreate-r than of twenty-four hours ;'" and-the iot amount to an abridgment of tizens by the Fourteenth Amendion, for the reason given in that rt of General Sessions, involving 38 Atl. 579. The Court of Genrred to, wrote a careful opinion - ? - * 1 1 iter authorities, and tnorougmy >aid Delaware statute. CAROLINA. 2 Legislature of South Carolina e following pertinent sections: by the General Assembly of the it shall be unlawful for any per any, I0 snip, transport, or convey a point without this State into to another in this State, for the rer the same to any person, firm, a this -State, or for any firm, per, to rcceive or be in possession mented or malt liquors or bev)ne per cent, of alcohol, for his, J. 1- ? - ' ^ ^ a S\4-ll i)v J\ /*y At IUI LUC hoc u) uny umt-r hereinafter provided. nay order and receive from any xceeding one gallon within any personal use, of spirituous, vinor beverages. -1^- : _r i.1 JOiailllg clliy Ui U1C piV?V13HJ113 V-?i ine of not less than one hundred t less than three months, or both, } passed on by this Court. We. the Atkinson infra leads to the 11 be sustained as a valid police iration the Webb-Kenyon Law shipped into South Carolina in y x. Co., 94 S. C. 44, 78 S. E. 516, Durt said that the Legislature of r to adopt a statute having the ing alcoholic liquors from being ch a statute would not contraited States Constitution. As we Act of Congress divests intoxiite character and invests the re:r either to prohibit importation [y for sale and use. through a \HO. , 151 Pac. Rep.-1006, there was ite of Idaho making it unlawful ), sell, transport* deliver, receive intoxicating liquors except as in i his possession any intoxicating i or purpose except the same has :ssed under a permit authorized tioner, Crane, had in his posses>hibition district, a quantity of >t for sale or gift. tatute was a violation of Section it to the United States Constituble exercise of the police power :d a section of the Idaho Consti shall be deprived of life, liberty, ss of law." cases, New York ex rel Sils v. quoting from Purity Extract & [92, and from Mugler v. Kansas, referred to the following cases le statute and which the Court gument against the wisdom of -of raocon whv airl nf fh#? at it 451, 119 Pac. 596. 50; 107 S. W. 383; 24 L. R. A. 146; io S. E. 283; 6 L. R. A. C. 618; 61 ;S. E.; 17 L. R. A. ssed its conclusion as follows: ) ne of these opinions would hesiintoxicating liquor may be pro. _ r .1 _ 1 * - 3 iUnl e 01 ine ponce puwci, eniu uia.t my of the privileges or immuniy as to violate any constitutional nitted, that if the possession of lity injure or affect the health, X m u pi i i tn < pa i 1 rv i n iHHf " !>; ?. ' _ '\':'2r' >ss? H a a n i z F] I - * ' ? . r I rn i * ~ J f i ? I Jpj