The Horry herald. (Conway, S.C.) 1886-1923, October 18, 1894, Image 4
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.
'