University of South Carolina Libraries
DISPENSARY LAW SUSTAINED. | THU 811'RISMK cor 1 IT 11KVKHHK8 A KOllMKK DKCIHION. The Law Is a Police Ke){ul?ll(in~Htiy. iiiu and ScIIImk is Incidental to t lie Main Purpose of Hernial Ina the Liquor Tea file?Chief Just lee Melver IXssrnt*?Opinion by l?luKcnc li. Oiary, Associate Justice. The opinion of tho Supreme Court was rendered last week upon the Dispensary Act of ISlW, and decluros the law to'lie constitutional, reversing the former decision of the Court. Justicos Clary and I'ope agree upon t he COnsUlt it. ion sdl t.%> nf (In. loui urtilln I'l.l/.f i..o_ tico Molvor bus tiled a dissenting opinion. The great length of these opinions will prevent their entiro reproduction in our columns, and only the chief portion of.Iustice Gary's decision is given herewith : The State of South Carolina?In the Supremo Court?Aiken County?The State vs. ex relatione .1. V. GcoVgo and G. T. Itolley, appellants, vs. the city council of the city of Aiken, roM^he issues involved in this caso are far reaching in their consequences and of greatest moment. An Act of the Legislature, which has for its object ? I,,, 1, ..f t\ # i/Mi- nnuintu wi nit.- VUAUll l|UCSLI?MI <M the liquor tratllc, in boforo this Court for review, and its constitutional I ty is untested. The sohome of the Act is novel in its features, and the Court is not able to (tot much light from adjudications hearing directly thereon. Wo J are therefore compelled from necessity to reach our conclusions upon a consideration of the general principles of law on which it is founded. We trust that we enter upon the consideration of the principles involved in this case with a proper sonso of the responsibility which rests upon us. The conclusions at which we have arrived were reached after mature deliberation and careful consideration. The issues Involved herein will bo seen !*?? .. ? I u>ui v i y i'v ?% rtuvsi i> ntatuiiit'iil m fuels, out of which the case aroso. A STATEMENT OF THE CASE. The relators, who wore opening a dispensary by State appointment and authority under the Aet of the Ciencral Assembly, approved December Hd, 1893, and known as the Dispensary Act, having been summoned to answer before the town council of Aiken for violation of an ordinance prohibiting the sale of vinous or malt liquors without a license, applied before his Honor, Judge Aldrich, for a writ of prohibition restraining the town council from interfering with them upon said charge on the ground that the ordinance was a nullity, and tho council in seeking to enforce it was attempting to exorcise a power with which it was not vested. The town council in answer to a rule to show cause juntitled its proposed action by an assortion of tho validity of the ordinance in question, and bv the claim that the Dispensary Aet of 1893 was null and void as violative of Sections 1, 2 and 11 of Ar\ tide 1 of tho Constitution of the State, of Section 8, Articlo 1, of tho Constitution of the United States, of Amendments 4, 5 and 14 of that Constitution, and of tho national laws regulating Inter-State commerce, it also urged that tho relators had umplo remedy at law for the correction of their ullcgod grievances and that the writ on that ground should not issue. Judge Aidrich hold, under the authority of Mefliillminrh nf o 1 11??*\????-* o4 .?*! lt? c 1^ It., 190, that tho Act of 1893 was violative of the State Constitution, null and void ; that tho Act is not in violation of the Constitution of tho United States, tho amendments thereto or tho Inter-State commerce laws of thO United States; but that tho charter of the city of Aiken does not sustain tho ordinance, and that the same was illegal and void. Ho further overruled tho objection that the relators had ample remedy at law, and ordered tho writs of prohibition to issuo. Both relators and respondents appealed : tho first on the ground that the Judge erred in holding the Act of 1893 null and void, as violative of tho State Constitution and in permitting respondents to question tho constitutionality of the Act, and the respondents on the grounds that tho Judgo erred in not holding tho Dispensary Act null and void as violative of the Constitution of tho United States and of tho national 1 nter-Stuto commerce law ; in not holding the relators had ample remedy at lnw, and so are not entitled to the writ, and in holding tho ordinance in question to he without support of law, null and void. Tn tho light of these cases wo proceed to a consideration of the Act of 1893. Before proceeding to a consideration of tho specific objections urged against the constitutionality of the Act we desire to stato at tho outset that In our opinion the following propositions embody the principles governing this case; FOUNDATIONS OF TUB mnpip'a ION. 1st. That liquor in its nature is dangerous to tho morals, good order, health and safety of the people, and is not to bo placed on tho satno footing with the ordinary commodities of life, such as eorn, wheat, cotton, tobacco, potatoes, etc. 2d. That tho Stato under its police power can itself assume entire control * and management of those subjects, such as liquor, that are dangerous to the peace, good order, health and morals and welfare of tho pooplo, even when trade is one of tho instruments of such entire control and mauagemont on the.part of the State. .'trd. Thai tho Act of lHD.'l is a polico measure. ? ' Wo are frank to say that if wo are wrong as to either of these proposi*7 tions the Act should bo declared unconstitutional. We will now cite uu-.j thorities to sustain those propositions. We think differences of opinion as to constitutionality of this Act arise from the attempt on tho part Of some to apply to it the'law applicable to tho ordinary commodities of life*. The sale of an article may bo lawful unless restrained by law and yet it may be of such a nature a* to endanger the peace, safety, health and morals of a pooplo. We (To not suppose that there is u moro potent factor in keeping up tho necessity for asylums, penitentiaries and jails and in producing pauperism and immorality throughout tho entire country than liquor, and yot it is argued that it is to ho placed on tho same footing with tho breadstuff a and othor ordinary commodities of life. main fkaturks oi" thk act. Wo coroo now to an examination of tho Act of 1303 aw to it? main foaturou. it hat* boon shown in the case of Mugler vh. Kansas, 123 U. S., that what are known as tho |>olico powers of'tho Governmont.are to determined primarily by tho legislative department. The intention of the Legislature is to bo gathered from tho words-of tho Act. Tho< title of tho Act is M An Act to declare the law in reference to and furthor regulate tho 'use, sale, consumption, transportation and disposition of alcoholic liquids or liquors within the State of South Carolina and to polio* y S ?2 the same." The <\<-'t provides that "all such liquids, liquors, except when I bought from a State officer authorized * to soli the saine or in possession of one. } aro deduced to bo contraband una against the morals, h<kk1 health and safety of the State, and must bo seized * wherever found." etc. The Govornor, I Attorney General and Comptroller i General shall ox-olllcio constitute a t State board of control to carry out the ' provisions of this Act. This Act pro- ? vldes for t he appointment of a comniis- i sioner, who shall purchase nil liquors for lawful snlo undor such rules utul regulations as may bo mode by tho State board of control, and furnish tho sumo to such persons as may ho designated as dispensers thereof. All liquors shall ho tested by the chemist and doelared to he pure Imforo sale for the county dispensers. The Stato lx>ard of control shall up]>oint a county lx)ard of control, composed of throe persons who shall uppoint certain otllcers known as county disMonsors. The dispensers can only sell by the package, which cannot he broken nor the liquor drunk upon the premises whore sold. Tho Act shows that tho Legislature had in viow tho protection of the morals, good health and safety of tho State. In dealing with this question many safeguards arc thrown around j tho nalo of liquor. Tho commissioner > is to hi' an abstainor from intoxicants ; the liquor iH to bo tested by tho chein- i ist and declared to ho pure: tho liquor < is to ho sold only in packages and cannot ho opened nor drunk whero sold ; 1 tho sales can only he made in day time; I persons cannot be appointed on tho county hoard of control who aro ad- ] dieted to tho use of intoxicating liquor; < no person can ho appointed a county i dispenser who has ever boon adjudged 1 guilty of violating the law rotating to ( intoxicating liquors, nor who is keener 1 of a restaurant or a placo of public ' um.'somont, nor who is addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage ; tho county dispenser shall exo- i cute a bond in tho sum of upon ? which suit for damages may bo brought for violation of tho provisions of tho Act by a wife, child, parent, guardian, .......1... ~4?? ? * v ...[..wjtr *u utuur pursuns u majority j i of t.lic voters in a township may prevent tho establishment of a dispell- 1 sary ; the county dispenser shall tako ] an oath therein proscribed ; a printed or written request must ho presented < for permission to purchase; tho sale shall not he made to a minor, a person intoxicated, a person in tho habit of 1 drinking to excess, nor to a person unknown to tho dispenser; it provonta tho establishment of club rooms where i liquors are used. Onoof tho lionolicial < results of the law is brought about by selling only for cash. It has boon argued that there was no necessity for this regulation by the i State, that the same results could he accomplished by allowing private indi- j; viduals to carry on tho traffic, and for | in is reason tno Act is null and void. i The necessity was a question exclusively for the legislative department as shown by the foregoing1 authorities, < partioulu'ly town council vs. I'ressley, MS. ('. The judiciary "cannot run a race of opinion upon points of right, reason and expediency with the law i powers." The State has the right < through its own officers, in fact it is the 1 primary duty toenforcoits police regulations, which right inheres in govern- I mcnt itself und is paramount to any I right inherent in citizenship. < Hut referring to the foregoing objoe- i tion. us matter of fact it would not he i as efficiently enforced by private indi- i viduals, because there would ho the 1 consuint temptation to make as largo 11 profits as possible. Chief Justice Ale- 1 Ivor, in McCullough vs. Drown, says: < " By its profit feature it holds out an < inducement to every taxpayer to en- i courage as large sales as possible and \ thereby lessen the burden Of taxation I to l.lin i*vt.nnt. of ?? - V/. VIIV |/I \/il KO KV; IJU 1UIV" li/.ed." THK OUTtiltOWTlI OF DISSATISFACTION The dispensary act itself is an outgrowth of a .dissatisfaction on the part of tile people with the manner in which the police power, when delegated, was ; abused. The law was enacted in selfdefense, and vindicates the wisdom of our forefathers in allowing wide legislative discretion in the exercise of tiie police power. There is nothing in the act showing that its primary object is the raising of revenue. The sales are to be made under rules adopted by the county iHuird of control, and approved by the State board of control. It is certainly possible for the objects of .the act to bo carried into effect under i proper rules adopted for that purpose. It is within the power of tho boards of control to eliminate the profit feature altogether, it is presumed that public olhcials will discharge tho duties of ofjjco in a lawful manner, until the contrary appewp. When a case is brought before this court, contesting tho legality of tho rules adopted by tho boards of control, it will bo time enough then for this court to pass upon tho revenue feature. SuMloo it to say no such question is now before us. , vj ejection nas noon urged against s the net that it in repugnant to tho pro- j vihionB of tho Constitution as to taxa- ] tion. This objoction could only be i sustained in ease it should be decided j that tho object of tho act js not the | exorcise of polieo power. Police iu a ( public purpose and tuxes lovied to en- j able the government to enforce a law , construed to bo in pursuance of tho 1 police power has never been declared j unconstitutional. Those interposing i tho objection abvo mentioned gssumod that tho act is not a police moas- ] uro and thus argue against its con- ] stitutionality, If the act is a police measure a tax , lovied for its enforcement would bo as | lawful as a tax to raiso funds to build j a State House, or railroad, which it , has boon determined beyond contro- ( versy, tho State always does under this power of police, inherent in the govern- ( inent. IJeforp this objection can proporly arise it will have to bo determined whether the act is a police ipejisure, which is always a public purpose. Objection is made as to tho constitutionality of the act on tho ground that it creates & monopoly. Those in- , terposing this objecting, likewise, uhHinuo that it is not a police measure. Tho objection is fully inot by tho do clsion of the court in the slaughter house eases supra, in which tho court , says: "That wherever the J/jgislaturo has the right to accomplish a certain result, and that rosult is best attained My means of a corporation, it j has the right to create such a corpora- 1 tlon and to endow it with tho power noceasary to olTect tho desired lawful , purpose, seems hardly to admit of do- | onto." ] Tiednian ou limitations of power, , .818, says: "Jf it is lawful for tho \ State to prohibit a particular business , altogether, or too make a government j monopoly of it, tho pursuit of Buch < business would, if permitted to any < one, bo ft privilogo or franchise, and ) being lino any other franchise, may f ho made exclusive. This is but a logi- f cal consquenco of tho udmission that h tho State has tho powor to prohibit a t trade altogether. Such an admission t is fatal to u resistance of the |?owor to i I make it a monopoly." j ' ' m I I . . . The doctrino of " monopoly " cannot >o applied to a State in exorcising its rovcruiuentul functions. iku.ino liquor is not? an inalienable right. lV.e llrst objection sot forth in reipondont's return to the writ of prohi>ition is thut tho act is in violation of section I of Article 1 of tho Constitution of this State, whleh is as follows : 4 All men are born froo and equal ? mdowed by their Creator with certain nalienablo rights, among which uro ,ho rights of enjoying and dofending ,hoir lives and liberties, of neonirinf. mssossing and protecting property md of Booking and obtaining their tafoty and happinoss." Tho act is not 11 violation o< this section unions it ins deprived tho respondent of an inilienabio right. It will b6 observed that tho respondent iw a municipal corporation, but waving all (question as to tiio right of juch corporation .to claim tho same ' inalienable rights" uh a citizen, wo )<? not seo tiiat any "inalienable ight" has been invaded. Tho case >f Crowley vs. Christiansen, 127 U. S.. md other authorities hereinbefore dted, claarly show that a citizen has lot an "inalienable right" to sell iquor, but on the contrary that laws ire constitutional that prohibit tho mle altogether. Tho second objection is that tho act is in violation of Section 2 of Article 1 >f the Constitution of South Carolina, which is as follows: "Slavery shall never exist in this State : noithor shall I 1 ? * mvoiunoury servitude, except as a punishment fur crime whereof the party shall have boon duly convicted." Counsel for tlie respondent <1 id not trguo tliin objection, and us it bus no bearing wliutever on tins ease, we are constrained to tliink th,ero must have been a mistake in its insertion. FHE LEGISLATURE POWER OF^JBPflE STATE. ,C' Tlie next objection intoiyGsod by respondent is that the act is in violation of section 11 of article I of the constitution of this State, which is as follows : " Tho omuneration of rights in tli is constitution shall not he construed to impair or delay others retained hy the people and all powers not herein delegated remain with the people." This section was construed in the Base of State against Hayuo, 4 S. C., 120, in such a way as to bo in accord with the established theory of the State government and of tho power of the Legislature. Chief .lustice Willurd, in delivering the opinion of the court, said: "Section 1, article 2, declares that the legislative power ol this State shall he vested in two distinct brunches, the one to ho styled 4 the Senate' and the other 4tho House of Representatives,' and both together tho Goneral Assembly of tho Stato ol South Carolina." Although tho particular olllco of this section is to lix certain important features of tho body through which the function of legislation is to he exorcised yet it describes in an authoritative way tho nature of tho power invested. It is no less than the legislative power of the State. It is not such mid so much of tho legislative power of tho State as were intended to be used by that particular body, but it was the whole legislative power of this Stato, its whole capacity of making laws and providing tlie means for their enforcement. it was not intended that the Legislature should exorcise this power without limitation and restraint, for the constitution that usoh musu wuruH 01 grant imposes many iurh rostriotions and limitations affecting tho extent to which it may bo alYoctivoly oxorolaod. The form of expression horo omployed shows that tho peoplo of South Carolina entertain tho saino view of tho nature of legislative power that is accepted by >thor similar communities and intended that it should receive, in this re* ipect, tho construction ordinarily put jpon grants of such powers in other similar instruments; that is to say, they intended a general grant of that branch of governmental power and faculty described as the legislative [tower of the State, though subject to many restrictions ufTecting its ox3rcise. But it has boon argued that motion 1| of article 1 narrows this from a grant of general capacity to ono _>f limited power, it is said that tito powers of tho Legislature, of South Carolina must bo held to be special ind enumerated powers, llkothosoof tho Congress of the United States, and that such as are not in terms granted must bo regarded as withheld and retained by the peoplo, and that such is the force and effect of section 41 article 1. After quoting the section ho proceeds; "Tho truo effect of this declaration is that it reserves to tho peoplo whatever is not granted by tho instrument; as for instance, the right to nwko phanges in tho fopm of government is not- granted, apd qnder this clause remains with the people, capable of exorcise when they may hoo fit so to dp. Ah tbo legislative powor is granted in express terms im* iMH't.innr (> it"""' ? 1 t? .. fs.t.nu ui guiiurai powors, iuch general power of legislation cannot bo regarded as reserved to tho pooplo, undor this section. Such general language as that contained in section 1J article 1 cannot bo allowed nich foreo and effect as to c)iango entirely tho nature of legislative power >ind to introduce anomalous ideas in tho structure of the government." Tho very definitions of taxation, making }t clear that it must bo for a public purpose, ghpwe^ that thoro was no necessity for resort to the doctrine of reserved limitations to declare null and void a tax for a private purpose; and that tho court would have boon jompolled to repdpp tho decision it did in that case, oven if section 41, artlelo 1, had not heon roforred to at all. A roferonco to section 41, aiticlo 1, was incidental only and cannot lie regarded as authority to show that there are rosorved limitations when thopj was nothing in that case calling for an adjudication of such question. Tho cases cited in support of tho doctrine of implied limitations upon tho legislative authority wore in rogurd to taxation, as to which it was necessary to rosort to such doctrino for tho simple poison that tho very definition of taxation shows i? must be for a public pvrpose, and thoroforo an act of tho legislature attempting to raise money for a private purpose is null and void. Mr. T'indman, in his limitations of polioe power, says: " A tax is in tho most comprehensive lonso any charge or assessment loviod by tho government for public purposes, upon tho persons, property and privileges of the pooplo within the -axing district or State." Black, C. f., in Sharples8 vs. Mayor, Ac., 21 lJon. St. Hops., 1(10, which is one if the loading cqsos against the loctrine of rosorved constitutional imitations, shows that taxation neceslarlly moans the raising of revenue or a public purpose. In tho casos ho ays: "The Legislature has no con itliutional right to lay a tax or to tuthorizo municipal corporations to do t in ordor to raise fupds for a mere >rlvato purpose. No such authority passed to tho assombly by the tfonoral arrant of tho legislative power. This would not l>o legislation. Taxation is a mode of raising rovenuo for public purposes. When It is prostituted to obiocts In no way connected with tho public Interests or welfare It nouses to bo taxation anil becomes plunder." HUY1NO ANI) SKLL1NG AN INCIDENTAL FEATURE. It is contended that tho foregoing section prevents tho Legislature from embarking tho Stute in a commercial enterprise. Wo have no doubt that if such was tho object of tho act, and it was not intended as a police measure, it would bo unconstitutional oven in tho absence of section 41. article 3. As wo have said, if the act is not a police measure it is unconstitutional. It is quite a different tiling, however, when trade is simply un incident to a police regulation. uuying nntl soiling on the part of tho Federal, State and municipal governments takes pluc<; overy (lay, and as long as tho buying and selling are in pursuaneo of polico regulations, they aro entirely froo from legal objection. Tho Federal government sells liquor and other articles that have been seized as contraband, articles aro purchased by tho State to keep up the penitentiary, and usylum and other public institutions and enterprises; wo see it buying a farm to utilize tho convict labor of tho State and selling the products made on the farm; municipal governments have tho right to buy and dispose of property in administering the governmental affairs. The | very distinction for whieh wo contend > is pointed out in the cuso of Mauldin ( vs. City Council, 33 S. C'., 1. Iu that , caso tho court showed it was not wrong , for tho city to buy and sell for a public purpose, but that the act only bocamo illegal when it was for a privato purpose. Wo think the case was pro' 1 .. .1 U - - - * * puny uucuieu unu Uiat tDC decision rested upon this distinction. The ease of State vs. Boebo, <1 Ind., was upon tho construction of u statute of Indiana somewhat similiur to tliu . uct in question, and is relied upon as an authority to sustain the proposition that tho State cannot tako direct control and management of the liquor , tratllc. In that case tho court uses tho following language: "Tho buslncsss (tho management and sale of liquor) was at and before tho organization of tho government and is properly at all times a private pursuit or the people, as much so as tho manufacture and sale of brooms, tobacco, cloths and , the dealing in tea and rice, and the raising of potatoes." This case is in conflict with tho distinction made between liquor and the ordinary commodities of |lifo as. er slated in the \ case as Crowley vr oristiunsen, U. , S., supra; Blaek on int., Lig., supra; ' State vs. Turner, 18 S. C., and other authorities hereinbefore montlonod. t If liquor is to bo placod on tho same ' footing with the articles mentioned in , tho Indiana case, then that decision , was right. Hut if there is that dis, tinction for which wo contend, then , tho case is valueless as an authority, , being decided on erroneous principles. Tho principles upon which that case , was decided would have forced the , court that rendered it to have declared null and void a statute entirely pro| hibiting tho tratllc in liquor, although there is no longer any doubt as to tho constitutionality of such statutes. A STATE CAN PRESCRIBE CONDITIONS. Ltospondents next objection are that tho art js in violation of the 4th, T>th and J 1th amendments to the CniiHt.ii.n I tion of tho United States. Those 1 amendments have no application to this ease. In Smith vs. Maryland, 18 How., ; tho court a ay a: 4,If rested on that claijso in the constitution of tho United ! States, whin!) prohibits tho Issuing of a ; warrant, but on probable cause &up: ported by oath, tho answer Is that this ; restrains tho issue of warrants only i under tho laws of tho United States j and lias no application to Statu prp| oosu," Chief Justice Fuller delivering tho opinion of tho court in WilHerson vs. K.ihrer, I lu l\ S., says ; " The powor of tho Statute imp; wo restraints and burdens upon persons and property in conservation a promotion of tno public health, good order, and prosperity, is a power originally and always belonging to the States, | pot surrendofed by thorn tq the general goyorninepi per diroepy restrained by the constitution of tho pnited States and essentially exclusive. And this cmu't baa uniformly reoogntyed S^tato legislation legitimately for police purposes, as ii"t in tho sense of tho constitution, necessarily Infringing upon any right, which has been confided expessly or by implication, to tho national government. Tho Fourteenth I Amendment, in forbidding a State to ; make or enioroo any law abriding tho privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, or to doprivo any i person of lite, liberty or property without ffho process of law, or to deny to any person within its jurisdiction- tho equal protection of the law did not Kyost and did not attornnt to invoHt. Congress, with power to legislate subject* whiUl) uro within the domain of Stato Legislation * * ^ in short, it is not to bo doubted that the power to inuke tho ordinary regulations of polico remains with tho individual States, and cannot bo assumed by tho national tfovornmont, and that in this rospoct it s not interfered with by tho jypurteenth Amendment. Mr. Justieo Harlan dolivoring the opinion of tho court in Muglor vs. Kansas, 12.'! U. S., sustains this view and quotes with approval tho following from the ease of llarbior vs. Connolly : " But neither tho amendment (14th)? broad and comprehensive as it Is?nor any other amendment was designed to interfere with tho power of tho Stato sometimes termed its police power to presortb" regulation# >o ufpmnte tho iicalth, peace, morals, education and good order of tho people and to legislate so as to increase the industries of tho Stato. develop its resources and add to its wealth and prosperity." Under the do^ision of tho Supromo Court of tho United States liquor was hold to bo subject of commorco and national In its character. It was settled at an oarly date in the history of tho national government that tho Stato under its polico power could legislate upon those subjects of locul nature until Congross saw fit to intorforo and suporepde f.ho Stato law- It was, howovor, u vexed question for u long timo in tho courts or tho United States, as to tho right of tho Stato, undor its nnlinA nnurm1 ? BiiKla.it " It- 1 ! ?? v? y ?V/ OUI/JVVV W ll/O lOWB those subjects of interstnto commerce whioh wore national in character, in the absence of Congressional legislation upon the subject. In tho case of Loisy vs. Hardin, 135 U. S. tho court had under consideration tho act of Iowa, which forbade any common carrier to bring into the Stato of Iowa, for any person or persons or corporation, any intoxioatlng liquors from any other 8tato or Territory of tho United States without first having been furnished with a certificate undor tho seal of the county auditor of the county of which said liquor was to bo transported or was consigned for transportation, certifying f . ~ -- **"? 4 % v- . t that tho consignee, or persons to whom such liquors was to bo transported, convoyed or delivered, was authorized to sell intoxicating liquors in such county. By a divided court it was hold that such act was unconstitutional; that the police power of a Stato is subordinate to tho commercial power, and consequently that a State could not proscribe conditions upon which liquors could bo transported into such State from another State; and also that liquors transported into u State from, another State could bo sold in tho original packages, oven when the laws of tho State, into which such liquor was transported prohibited tho sale. The decision in this case caused the passage of tho uct of Congress of 1KIK), and the reason leading to its adoption aro well expressed in tho dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Gray (concurred in by Mr. Justice Ifurian and Mr. Justice Brewer) In that case, in the following words : " How for tho protection of tho public order, health and morals, domands restriction or prohibition of the bale of Intoxicating liquors is a question pe- < culiarly appertaining to tho Loglsla- , tures of tho several States, and io bo \ dotormlned by thorn upon their own 5 views of public policy, taking into consideration the noeds, tho oducation, \ tho habits and tho usages of people of ] various and origin ; and living in re- i gions far apart, and widely differing in ellinutoand in physical characteristics. , Tho local option laws prevailing in j many of the States indicate the judgment of as many Legislatures, that tho sale of intoxicating liquors does not , admit of regulation by a uniform rule over so largo an area as a single Stato, much loss over tho area of a oontinot." It is manifest that tho regulation of j the sale, as of tho manufacturoof such liquors, manufactured in one Stuto to be stored in another, is a subject which far from requiring hardly admits of a uniform system or plan throughout tho , United Status. It is in its very nature : not national, but local, and must, in order to bo either reasonable or effective, conformed to tho local policy and 1 legislation concerning tho Stato or tho j manufacture of intoxicating liquors generally. CongresH cannot regulate 1 this subject because that powor has not been conceded to Congress and remains in the several States ; nor under wio commercial power wiltuiut either < proscribing ft general rule unsuited to < the nature and requirements of the subjects, or else departing from thut uniformity of regulation which, as de- 1 clured by this court in JCitld vs. Pier- 1 son, it was the object of tho comnior- ' ciftl clause of the constitution to securo, but an intention is not likely to 1 be imputed to tho frumers of the con- i stltution or to the Congress of the < United States to subordinate the protection of the safety, health and morals 1 of tho people to tho promotion of trade i and commerce. i Again, "Tho statutes in question " were enacted by the State of Ohio in tho exercise of tho undoubted power to protect its inhabitants against the evils, physical, moral and social, attending tho free use of intoxicating liquors. They arc aimed at interstate commerce, thoy have no relation to tho movement of goods from one State to another, but operate only on intoxicating liquors within the territorial limits of tho Stato. They include all such liquors without discrimination, and do not even mention whore thoy are made or whence thoy came. Thoy affoot commerce much more romotely and indirectly than laws of a State (the validity of which is unquestioned) authorizing the erection of bridges and dams across mi'Mgublo water* within thp limits, which wholly obtruct tho course of comm'morce untl navigation : or than quarantine laws, which operate directly upon all ships and merchandise coming into tho ports of the ytato." The intention of (Jongrosss was to deprive liquor of its national character n\a a su eject oi cpmmcrce, nmko it Q(is>l in ifa nature, uiitj subjects to tho police power of tho Stato until Congress boos tit to legislate upon it. It was tho intention of Congress to subordinate tho commercial power of tho j national government to tho' police [>ower of thp State ou tho subject of ljijuoi;. Such being tho reasons that actuated ( Congress in passing tho act of 1890 wo papuot think that in tho absonco of U plain expresssion, that Congross intended tospburdipatp only n part of its oommerolal power to tho police power' of the State on this subject, but on tho oontmry that tho sale as woll as tho conditions upou which the liquor should ho transported after it was introduced into tho territorial limits of tho State should bo loft to State legislation. To give a difToront construction to tho aot wopld subject liquor to two poWers?tho commercial and pollco?within t'ho territorial limits of tho Stpte. Wo cannot think this was thp intention of Congress when It do- 1 priyod it of its national character. ' v ;ryn-?t. " 1 WITH YOUR HANDS TIBD iTycakneaa, *whafc can you expect? There'* nothing you can ao *T 0UT4 yOU, safely and certainly, if you'll give U faithful use. For every one of these womanly troubles, this is the only remedy so sure that it oan be guaranteed. In periodical pains, bearing-down sensations, organic displacements, and every kindred ailment, and in all the nervous disorders caused by functional derangements?if it ever fails J.P benefit or ours, you Jiave your pioney back. It's a potent remedy for Chorea or St. Vitus'* Dance?for Insomnia or friability to Sleep ap4 to avert threatened insanity. It regulates 1 all the natural functions, builds up i and invigorates the entire female i system, and restores health and 1 strength. Nothing els<^ though it may be , better for a dealer to sell, eta be wjust as good H for you to buy. : i There wouldn't be any cases of Chronic Catarrh if everyone used i Dr. Sage's Remedy. There's $500 j reward for an incurable ease. | { ? jt i mi ** jDebllltated WOOluMI | . SHOULD USE . J | BRADFIELD'S I I Female Regulator.!! Every ingredient possesses superb J [ , Tonic properties, and exerts a wonder-1 i ( ?ul influence in toning up and strength-J t ouinir h?>r ? vafprri l,u ili-iuimt i'? - ' ? -j > "' II IP the propor channel all impurities.1 1 ! f> Health and strength aro guaranteed to j [ ' result from its use. i i 2 Mr wife, who wn? bed ridden for rluhicen, , 2 months, after using Hit Ann km in IKMAII 1 X llKUl'T.ATou fnr two innntlm. In veiling well. , - J. M. JOHNSON. Malvern, Ark. 2 Sold br all DrutjgUt* at (1.00 per buttle. | BRADFIELD'S REGULATOR CO., Atlanta, Ga. j | * 1 | -rSorao months ago the Memphis ' Commercial Appeal ofTerod a cash prize of $500 to the person guessing nearest the number of bales of cotton 1 marketed during the cotton season of 1803-1894. The Commeroial-Apncal now announces that Miss Willie Wallis. of Talladega Couuty, Alabama, is the winner of the prize. The official 1 figures of the Now Orloans Cotton Kxuimngo show that 7,M0,817 bales woro marketed during the cotton year, , while Miss Willis'guess was 7,540,813 i hales, being within four bales of the official figures. W. P. Drop, Druggist, Springfield 1 Mass., writes : ''.Japanese Pile Cure has curod lady 7 years allllcted ; could ' not walk half niilo in last 5 years now 1 walks any distunco. Sold by Carpenter Bros., Greenville, S. C. 1 Pimples, blackheads, moles, freckles, tau and sunburn removed by John- ( son's Oriental Soap. Medicinal. Sold by Carpenter Bros., Greenville, S. C. Call for the Horso Brand of Johnson's Magnetic Oil. It 'ias no equal for tho diseases of horses and cattle. Sold by Carpenter Bros., Greenville, S. C. C). L. Hloo, Mendota, 111., writes: '* Have used your Japanese Pile Cure and found it. n. Biiiml omi ? .. ?.? ..V,. wjiMim J/VI lUdllUUI/ I euro." Sold by Carpenter Bros., I [iroonvlllo, S. C. ?Twonty-threo negro men of the Ninety Six section in Kdgcllold County have boon arrested and lodged in jail. I'hoy wore arretted by J. li. tlickaon, United States deputy marshal, on war- j rants charging them with whipping i ;ind otherwise maltreating sevoral ( ether negroes who had testified in the , United States Court against some of their number for soiling liquor. It seems that they had been playing the roll of regulators. Hpw an Enemy was Foiled. The following graphic statement will bo road with intense Interest, VI oapnok describe tho numb, preepy sdnsatkm that existed in my arms, hands ana legs. 1 had to rub and boat those parts until they were sore, to ovorcome In u measuro tho dead feeling that had taken possession of them. In addition. 1 Lud a Btrnnge weakness In my boo* and arduhd my "vervlat, together With an Indescribable 'gone* feeling Tn my Stomach.' Physicians said It wns creeping paralysis, from which, according to their unlroraal conclualyw, Is' no relief. Once lb fastena ppon a person, they say, it cObt\nuee Its Insidious progress until It reaches a Vital point and the Butforcr diesSuch waB my prospect, I had heocT doctoring a year and ft |wl Steadily.' but with no part Iculur benefit, when I saw an advertisement . of Dr Miles' Restorative Nervine, procured a , bottle and bogan pslngf It, Marvelous as It may seom. but a few days had passed before every bit of that creepy feoling had left me, and there has not boen even tho slightest Indication of Its return. I now feel as well as 1 ever did, and havo gained ten pounds In weight, though 1 had run down from 170 to 137. Four others Rave used Dr. Miles' Restorative {fervid* oh my recoraondatioo, and It|lasboon as satisfactory In their cuseu As In mine."?James Kane, JLa Rue. Q, I)r. Miles' Restorative Nervine Is sold by (ill druggists on a positive guarHntee. ok* sent , dlrecYby the W. mRos ^Iwllcsl Co., Elkhart, ] I tel.. tin' receipt of price, 91 per bottle, six bottles for fifi, express prepaid. It is free from ; fpUtos or dangerous drugs QSpld Puv.pentor Bros., Druggists, -?-? i SMITH'S 1 VULCAN i OINTMENT,: ' 1 SURK CURB FOR ] A I Piles, Rheumatism, J Catarrh, Neuralgia, ! Corns and Bunions, i Burns and Old Sores, , Scald Head and Ringworm, i Caked Breast and Sore Nipples, Weak and Sprain* 1 ed Backs. k i A special ointment is made and sold \ for Itch and Itching Piles, which is guaranteed to give satisfaction. . Every box of SMITH'S VULCAN , OINTMENT is sold with the understanding that the money will be ro- i funded if not satisfactory. i Highest testimonials furnished as to Its efficacy in Piles, Khoumatism, Nou- ' ralgia, oco. J Sold by dealers in mediolno every- J where at 25 and 50 cents per box, or mailed to any address on receipt of * price in postage stamps or currency. 1 Sample boxes froe. W. J. Smith, Solo Proprietor, Greenville, 8. C, gjTMontion this paper In or iering. ' ~ j&Ar?iKn ??mmmrnmmm nin *?? Suspending Militia Officers.? A dispatch from Columbia says : Governor Tillmau spent today comidoring tho report of tho court of inquiry appointed to consider tho refusal to obey orders by a number of companies of the State during the Darlington trouble. The results of his consideration wus the issuance of a general ordi r suspending General T. A. Huguenin and all the staff and genoral officers of the Kourth Brigade, also the captains of uiiu idiiowing named companies : uerman Fusilers, Gorman Artillery, ^Montgomery Guards, Gordon VoliWtcors, Irsh Volunteers, Gordan Light.iufantry, Palmetto Guards, Catawba Hides, Sumter Guards, Govornors' Guards, Carolina Hides, and Columbia Zouaves. Captains J. K. Alston?of the Kiehland Volunteora, Edward Anderson, of the Carolinu Hides, and J. E/litgawoll t)f the Washington Light Infantary not suspended. ^ '*-? it is furthor ordered that the noncommissioned oltieors and mou composing the above companies arc forbidden to exorcise any of the functions of militiamen, until furthor orders from the commauder-in-ohief. Booth's Vuloan Ointment for Hhouma tiam. Road the following testimonial from Hon. W. L. Mauldin, of Greenville, as to tho great merits of Smith's Vulcan Ointment, which is advertised in another column : 4 Mr. W. J. Smith: ll?*response to your inquiry, I take this occasion to say that I have on several occasions used your Vulcan Ointment, and always with satisfaction. I am satisiiod that it is a very valuable remedy in acute attacks of rheumatism and If - . < used freely and persistently will bring groat relief. I trust you may get this Ointment gonerally lntroduoed to tho people, as 1 know it has groat morit, and uiJlko many of tho nostrums imposed upon tho nublic by extensive advertisements only neods to bo used to convince ono ol its superior oftlcacy. Yours truly, w. L. Mauldin. MAGNETIC NERVINE. '* with written fuarti.tM to euro mm w*f. i hr\nhM tka JtJil ne??,fAoad*ch?and J JftkLJDjn Vt Meur?liflR?ntiWnkorc-w J fulneiM<Xj?e?HlbiroxBR^Aot Zol; MonUl I>oprcf? BE-FORE - AFTER ?io^ ?fining of tho Bradp, otmaing Misery, Insanity and Death) llarrenKoa, Itupotency, Lost Power In either box. Promntura Old Ai*,InvolunU?ry Ixjmm, caused by ovor-ludulgonoe, oteV-oxertlon of the Brain rdcI Error* of Vnn?h it " " ' . , ....... >u n?o* urnuin moir Natural Vigor ana doubles the Joy? of life: cures [.ucorrhwa anil Female Weakness. A month's treatment, In plain package, by mall, to any addre***, 91 I or box, 9 boxes 90. With every 96 order wo glvo a written Guarantee to cure or refund the money. Dlrculnra free. Guarantee Issued Only by our exclusive ngons. ? Carpkntf.u Dror . Greenville, 8 0 WACCAMAW LINE STEAMERS. The Steamer will leave her wharf Mt Conway every Monday and Wednesday morning for Georgetown at4o\:l ek. touch. iiiK all intermediate points. And will leava lior wharf at Georgetown every Tuesday and Friday morning for ('eawav at 4 o'clock, touching all Intermediate points. 1). T. M'SFIL, Gcu'tAg't and Tress. Cor? way. u. < II. A. MUNNEHLYN, A gent,Georgetown Vh ^ Schedule of Local Mail Routes. ROUTB Nt). 99S78.*-From Galivanft PerrK, to Conway, mail arrives t.45 p ni, on Mon- \ dav, Wednesd.y and Fridny; leaves at V 2.30 n m on uamu days. Mail closes at A ? \ ROUTE NO. '20230.^From Conway to flfre* \ r way, N, C- onitl arrives at 4:80 pun Tu? adny, Thursday and Saturday; leaf so at f? p m on uumc dttva. Mail closes at 4:fW> p in. ROUTE NO. 20281.---From C'onwuy vf? Forney, Jordanville, Gideon, Lalmtia sad return, mail arrives at 7 pin on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday; leaves iiU?n op Monday, Wednesday aud Friday. Mail closes at 9 p in. ROUTR NU- ?0*i2~~Fwim Cnnw,,. ? ? - VVH II HJ bU Lil I* ?lo River. mall arrives at 6pm on Mom day, Wednesday and Friday: leaves at 1 , a m Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. \ Mail closes at 0 p in, BOIJ'V# XtV 20288?Frmn Conway to Port 'lrarrolson, mail arrives dally at 12 n?? leaves daily at p m. Mail olose* at 1:10 j) n\. W" ILMINOTQNt CHADBOURN & C<?t\way R. R. Passongor and flight dally, oxcept 8un<lny. SOUTH11QUND?NO. 46. Lv Hub ft 15am Lv Uions 8 80am Ax Chadbonrn 0 00am Lt Chadbourn 10 10am Lv Clarendon , 10 40am Lv Mt Tabor A.,.,, . 10 r>r>am Lv Lorfif. x.,.., 11 20am t\ Sanfovtl 11 37* m v Bayboro 11 47am I,v l'rivetts 11 67am Lv A<\rn\n 12 42pm A p Conway 12 80pm NORTHBOUND?NO. 44. Lv Conway 200pm Lv Adrnlu 2 80pm Ly Prlvolts ...\ 2 35pm Lv Haylioro ...' 2 45pm Lv Mtnford 2 54na Ar l.orls 2 20p? Ar Mt Tabor. . . .?,<k55pm Lv l larviuloa 4 20pm Ar Chadbourn ^4 50pm Lv Chadbourn ....516pm Lv lln?n ft46pm W Kr Hub S 00pm i. L A TLANTIC COAST LINK. WIL- f _ /Y i*ington, Columbia Jb Augusta R y Lt. Condensed schedule, in effect Deo s 5,1803. (V ' TRAINS GOING SOUTH.?NO. 55. / V Lt Wilmington AOOpm Lt Chadbovro ft Wpm \ . Lt M arion ' \r Florence f ^P MO. ftft. 8,2M,4?3N? m Lt Florence i, . n| ir sumter 18.439.878.11 \V fc Lt Sumter Wom^w.w ^ Ar Columbia .. \ ^ J AW M. xLt Flereace ? Tfr: t * . ' (ft Ar Sumter ... St0an| / /V1 MO. 6*. \f \ I Lt Sumter &Sa*>\ I Ar Columbia 11 Warn H . 11 TWAINS GOING NORTH.?NO. 61. ^ 1 Lt Columbia 4 5ftata II Ar Sumter oft/ato i" it 8umt?r 0 OTMft Wr Floronoo 7 16am a. (3. uV Columbia 4 2#i>m kr Burnt- r 8 86p*n M#. BO. jy Sumter 0 45p? kr Florence 8 66pm KO. 64. j,y Florenos 7 40nm 4v Marion I 38am ^ < had bourn 20am kr Wilmington 10 10am No. 63 runs tuwiugh from Charleston via lentral Railroad,Reaving Lanes 1.44 a m, 4 sailing 0.20 a m. No. 63 runs through ta Charleston, 8. O., la Central K. It., arriving Manning 8 pm, .aaes 8.40 p m, Charleston 10.48 p aa. Train on Manchester A Augusta K. R. saves Sumter, dally except Sunday 18A0 a , * n, arrives Rlmlnt 11.60 a m. Returning w_,? u.uiiiu p ?, arrWa Bumtor i,? ' Traiii* on IlartaTllle *. K. laava Harta1Ue, dniiy oxoopt 8u?t*r, at 5 a m, arrifng Flayda 6.21 a m. Saturnine, laara rioya 0.45 p no, arriving at Bartatilla 18.1* i m. J. P. Divine, Gen'l Supt. Sv ^ J. K. Kinly. Supt. Trent. g T. M. Kmkbeon, GanH Pin. Agent ff'm. '