Huntsville gazette., 1893-03-04
SOUTH cARoLINA,s WNDlcATlaN.

".
The Two Foreigners who Claimed Ex-
traordinary Protection Failed to Get It.
CHARLESTON, March 3.-The follow
ing are the grounds of complaint, with
the rulings Of the court in the action Of
A. and Z. Cantin. two Italians, who
brought suit in the United States court
to test the constitationality Of South
| Cardinals liquor law. Judge Simon
TONS decision is very exhaustive. The
following is d summary of points made
by the complaint and the rulings Of the
court thereon:
/. 1t is alleged that the state dispen-
sary act is in violation to section 10.
article /, of the constitution of the
| United States forbidding states without
the consent Of congress TO levy any inn
| posts or duties on imports or ex-
| ports except what may be absolutely
| necessary for executing its inspection
| laws. The court rules that there is no
| provision OF this act open to this objec-
| tion.
2. That the act is in violation Of sec
| tion 2, article 4, and also the fourteenth
| amendment, which declares that no
state shall make and enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or
| immunities of citizens of the United
! States. The court declares that there is
no inherent right in citizen to sell in
| toxicating liquors by retail; that the
right to sell Intoxicating liquors is not
one of the rights growing out OF citizen
! ship of the United States.
g. The complaint charges that the
| dispensary act is in violation Of the fifth
amendment of the constitution of the
United States, which forbids the taking
| of property without due process of law.
and the taking of private property for
| public use without just compensation.
! To this the court rules that acts done in
| the proper exercise of governmental
| powers, and not directly encroaching
| on private property, although their con-
| sequences may impair its use, DO not
| entitle the owners of such property to
| compensation from the state. That the
destruction of property in the exercise
| of the police power Of the state when
such property is used in violation OF the
law III maintaining a public nuisance,
is not taking of property for public use,
and does not deprive the owner or Ii
| without due process OF law.
4. The complaint alleges that the law
is in violation of the constitution of the
state, which requires that every act ol
resolution shall relate to but one sub
iect and that shall be expressed in its
title. The court is very positive Of its
ruling on this subject 1t says 1t Is 6
settled principle Of parliamentary law
in this state that so long as the enactln2
words remain in bill it can oeamendee
to any extent. even by striking out all
up to the enacting words and by insert
ing other words as substitute. The
constitution does not require every
word in an act to be read three separate
times on three separate days. Ii 1t dlC
nothing important ever became or cal
become law.
The complaint urges that the plain
fiffs are Italian subjects and are protect
ed by the treaty article 9, which gives
them the liberty to travel in the state;
and territories, to carry OH trade whole
sale or retail, to hire and occupy houses
and warehouses, ETC., npon the same
terms as the natives of the country
Article gives them constant protection
and secures for their persons and prop
erty the same rights and privileges al
are granted to the natives.
Judge Simonton says under these ar
ticles the complainants have the same
rights as citizens of the United States
1t would be absurd to say that they haC
greater rights. The right TO sell intox
: icating liquors is not a right inherent i
a citizen and is not one Of the privileges
Of American citizenship. 1t is not il
the protection Of tle fourteenth amend
ment. 1t is within the police power
which is right reserved by the stat
that has not been delegated to the gen
eral government. In its lawful exercis
the states are absolutely sovereign
Such exercise cannot be affected by an.
treaty stipulations.