State ex rel. George v. Aiken

Citations

• 42 S.C. 222
• 20 S.E. 221
• 1894 S.C. LEXIS 3

Syllabus

<p>1. Dispensary Act — Stare Decisis. — The rule of stare decisis does not require the court to affirm a decision which held the “Dispensary Act” of this State to be unconstitutional, if the Court is satisfied that such former decison was clearly erroneous.</p> <p>2. Ibid. — The Dispensary Act of 1893 (21 Stat., 430,) differs in some of ils features from the Dispensary Act of 1892 (21 Stat., 62), but not in those features which the court in McCullough v. Brown, 41 S. C., 220, held sufficient to render the act of 1892 unconstitutional.</p> <p>3. Statute — Constitution—.Courts.—The courts should not declare an act of the legislature to be unconstitutional unless clearly and manifestly so.</p> <p>4. Liquor in its nature is dangerous to the morals, good order, health, and safety of the people, and is not to be placed on the same footing with the ordinary commodities of life.</p> <p>5. Ibid. — Polios Power — State Management. — The State, 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, morals, and welfare of the people, even when trade is one of the incidents of such entire control and management on the part of the State.</p> <p>6. Ibid. — Ibiü.—-Ibid.—The Dispensary Act of 1893, providing for a sale of liquor by the State alone, carefully regulating such sales, and excluding all other purchases and sales within the limits of this State, is a police measure, and a valid exercise of legislative power, even though there may be a possible revenue, and the restriction imposed might have been as well thrown around the liquor traffic in the hands of private persons.</p> <p>1. Dispensary Act — Police—Taxation—Monopoly.—The Dispensary Act being a police measure, it violates none of the provisions of the Constitution of this State as to taxation or monopolies.</p> <p>8. Ibid. — Sale oe Liquors. — This statute does not violate section 1 of article I., as the sale of liqu