The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1893-12-26

The DispenearF Stf}fcrS tf,nf d.
teat in the United States AuDsefps-
Sopssarsaage simonsons necisiSps
cerpue ~ OenieG,
WAsBLNGToN. Dec. lS.-4The South.
Ssarolina ~dispensary liquor law WAS the
subject of q decision In tho United
States SupremeC Court to-day. delivered
by Chief Justice Fuller. The facts Ia
the case, briefly, were1theSe: Rsfore
the law Vent into effect, a barrel OF
whiskey had been sent into the STATE
of South Carolina by o citizen of North
Carolina, over the South Carolina rail-
way, a concern operated by a receiver
appointed by the United States Court
Because of insufficient address, tho.
railroad officials could not deliver the
barrel to the c~onsignee, and it was
stored in the railroad station, pend
ing Investigation by the officials to
determine the identity ofthe consignee.
While thus stored, the barrel was seiz-
ed by Q. d. Swan, q State constable,
appointed to enforce the law. de
showed no warrant for the seizure of
the liquor, other than his badge of
office, and stated that he acted with
out instructions from any judicial of
ticer.
The receiver of the railroad had
Constable Swan brought before the
United States Circuit Court to show
cause why he should not be punished
for contempt of court in seiziug the
liquor. Upon the hearing of the case,
Swan was adjudged to be in contempt,
and was committed to the custody of
the United States marshal. The At
torney General of the State then
brought the case to the United States
Supreme Court on a motion for Swans
release upon a writ of habeas corpus,
~contending that the Circuit Court had
no jurisdiction in the matter to enter
any order respecting the action of the
constable.
After reviewing the case at great
length, Chief Justice Fuller stated the
opinion of this court to be that the
Circuit Court did have jurisdiction of
the matter and, further, that because
the seizure Of the liquor as made by
Swan was not expressly authorized by
the statute under which he claimed to
act, he was not justified in making it.
The motion for a writ of habeas corpus,
therefore, was denied.
In the course of his opinion, Chief
Justice Fuller said /:
1t must be remembered that this
property was in the custody, of the re-
clever, the officer of the court /; that it
bou DSSh OfouShG luUO UnS SUaJS De-
fore the act went into operation that
1T had not been delivered because OF
imperfect address that there was nc
concealment and no occasion for haste
and that there was no difficulty in the
way of application to the court to have
the goods detained or for permission to
withdraw them from the receivers
possession. Nothing can be clearer
than that the court had jurisdiction to
determine whether the goods were
retained in violation of the laws OF
State whether the receiver, in con.
Quoting the business of the railroad in
respect of the transportation Of this
barrel, was proceeding according tc
the valid laws Of the State as provided
by the second section of the act of Con.
gress of March 3, 1881; and whether
the seizure was authorized by any law
of the State.
THE possession of property by the
judicial department, whether Federal
or State, cannot be arbitrarily en-.
croached upon without violating the
fundamental principle, which requires
coordinate departments to refrain from
interference with the Independence OF
each other lin re. Tyler. 149 U. s., 164)
and the position that a petty officer car
take property from the possession of {
court, without permission and without
warrant, "upon his w motion anC
without instructions from any other
pp%eegsons" as petitioner admits he did
upon him hy-Ases.Aiaalaasnn9Yl Is imposed
that the court5t--. -TpC