OCR Interpretation


The herald and news. (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, February 01, 1916, Image 2

Image and text provided by University of South Carolina; Columbia, SC

Persistent link: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86063758/1916-02-01/ed-1/seq-2/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for TWO

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

xml | txt