The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1893-12-19
SWANS SEIZURE OF WHISKY
The Federal Supreme Court Refuses
Him HaheaS Corpus.

The Court Holds That He Had No
Authority to Take Possession of the
shipment-Gov. Tillman Thinks the
Decision Was Handed Down az a
Slap at Him Personally on Account
of His Recent Message.
Washington, Dec. ls.-The South Caro-
lima dispensary law 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 whisky had been sent into the
state of South Carolina by a citizen of
North Carolina over the South
Carolina railroad, concern oper-
ated by receiver appointed by the
United States court. Because of INSULT
cient address the railroad officials could
not deliver the barrel to the eonsign ee,
and it was stored in the railroad
station pending investigation by the
officials to determine the indentity
of the consignee. While thus stored the
barrel was seized by G. B. Swan, q 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 instruc-
tion from any judicial officer. The re-
ceiver 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 seizing
the liquor. Upon the hearing of the case
Swan was adjudged TO be in contempt,
a.. -
United States marshal. The attorney
general of the state then brought the case
to the United States supreme court on
motion for Swans release upon a writ of
habeas corpus, conteading 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 cir
cult 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 mo-
tion for writ of habeas corpus, there
fore, was denied.
AN EXTRACT FRoM TH8 OPINION.
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, the on1cer
of the court; that IL hada been brought into the
state before the act went into operation; that
II had not been delivered because OF imper-
feet address; that there was no conceal
ment and no Ocvasisn for haste, and that
there was no difficulty in ms way OF applica-
tion to the court to have the goods 6etained,
or for permission-tO Withdraw them from the
receivers possession. Nothing can be clearer
than that the court had jurisdiction TO de-
termine whether the goods were retained in
violation Of the laws Of the state, whether
the receiver, in conducting the business
of the railroad In respect OF the transporta-
tion of this barrel was proceeding accord
| ing TO the valid laws of the state as pro.
vided y the second section Of the act OF CON
gress OF March 3, 1877; and whether the seiz-
ure was authorized by any law Of the state
The possession OF the property by the judi
cfal department whether federal or state
cannot be arbitrarily encroached upon with
out violating the fundamental principle which
REQUIRES coordinate departments to refrain
from interference with the independence
of each olh r I'm re. Tyler, l49 q. S. 164) and
the position that police oficer can take
property from the possession OF court
without permission and without war
| rant, upon his own motion and with
out instructions from any other person
as the petitioner admits he did. because
a particular statute, ana that the court is
without power to pass upon the questions in
volved or If it does So that its judgment
ma be treated with contelnptuous defiance,
is utterly inadmissable in any community as.
suming to be governed by law.
TILLMAN ON THE DECISION.
Columbia, S. c., Dec. 1S.-When Gov.
Tillman was informed tonight of the
decision of the United States supreme
court in the Swan case, 1t appeared hard
for him to realize that the decision could
have been against the state again. Com
menting on it, he said: "Prejudtce don't
even stop at Washington. / don't see
what possible excuse they can have for
such stretch Of judicial authority. It
only intensifes the demand that must
arise for the curtailment OF the powers Of
the federal court, or we will have no lib
erty at all. 1t further shows that the
federal supreme court is not above parti-
san decisions when aimed at the reform
movement. If we cannot arrest contra
band liquor in the hands of receiver we
cannot arrest murderer on a train run
by receiver, for the state law is paral-
yzed by any such decision as this. Swan
had disobeyed no order of the court He
was simply guilty of trespass. ] imag-
inc my message had more to do with the
decision than the law. can stand it.,
bov