Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1893-12-19
CAROLINA llQUOR-LAW.
Decision of the Supreme Court in the Swan
Case.


Case.
WASHINGTON, d. c., December H.
The South Carolina dlspensary liquor-iaw
was the subject of another decision In
the United States Supreme Court to-day,
delivered by Chief-Justice Fuller. The
facts in the case briefly were these:
Before the law went into effect a barrel
OF whiskey had been sent into the State
of South Carolina by a citizen OF North
Carolina over the South Carolina railroad,
concern operated by receiver appoint
ed by a United States court Because OF
insufficient address the railroad officials
could not deliver the barrel to the con-
signee, and 1t was stored in the railroad
station pending investigation by the OIL
clals to determine the identity OF the con-
signee. While thus stored the barrel was
seized by C. b. Swan, State Constable.
appointed to enforce the law. He showed
no warrant for the seizure OF the liquor
other than his badge OF office, and stated
that he acted without instruction from
any judicial officer.
The receiver OF the railroad had Con-
stable Swan brought before the United
States Circuit Court to show cause why
he should not be punished for contempt
of court in seiZing the liquor in question.
OPbAA NAlI hNeAAiits VI NiAC NASC SWAN htio
adjudged to be i'm contempt and was COM
mitted to the custody of the United States
Marshal. The Attorney General of the
State then brought the case to the
United States Supreme Court on mo-
| tiOn for Swans release upon 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.
tn f1a.1 ~,
Chlef-Justice Fuller stated the opinion OF
the 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 ex-
pressly 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.
MATTER OF JURISDICTION.
In the course OF his opinion. Chief JUS
| tice Fuller said: "It must be remembered
that this property was In the custody OF
the receiver, an officer OF the court; that
/ II had been brought into the State before
/ the act went into operation; that II had
not been delivered because of imperfect
address; that there was no concealment
and no occasion for haste; and there was
no difficulty in the way Of application
to 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 jursdlc-
! tion to determine whether the goods were
retained in violation OF the laws OF the
| State; whether the receiver. in conducting Z
/ the business OF the railroad in respect OF
the transportation Of this barrel. was pro-
ceeding according to the valid laws Of
| the State as provided by the second Sec
tion OF the Act of Congress of March g.,
! 1857; and whether the seizure was au-
| thorlzed by any law OF the State.
"The possession OF property by the Judi
cial department. whether Federal or State,
cannot be arbitrarily encroached upon
without violating the fundamental prin-
| ciple which requires coordinate depart
ments TO refrain from interference with
| the Independence of each other Qn re
| Tyler, 1l9. L. S. l6D; and the position
that a petty officer can take property
from the possession OF a court without
permission and without warrant. upon
his own motion, and without instructions
from any other person. as petitioner ad-
mits he did, because in his view the duty
is imposed upon him by n particular
statute, and that the court Is without
power to pass upon the question involved,
or IL It does so, that its judgment may
be treated With contemptuous defiance, Is
utterly inadmissible i'm any community
assuming to be governed by law"