The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1893-08-29
JUDGE sImoNToN,s. DECISION.


long looked for decision in the habea,
corpus case from Newberry County
in the case Of railroad agent Lang
ford, OF Prosperity, who was arrested
for delivering a keg Of whiskey to its
cOnsignee. The matter hinged largely
upon the Interpretation OF section q
of the Dispensary Act, Of which Judge
Simonton gives full exposition. The
following is the decision I'm full:
UNITED STATES OF AMERIC }
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, :
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT.
In ID. M. Langford, habeas corpus
This case comes up upon petition for
habcas corpus, the writ and the return
thereto.
The petition sets forth that the pc
titioner, IL citizen of the United States,
and of the State of South Carolina is
the agent of the receivers of the Rich
mond g. Danville railroad at Pros
perity, q town in South Carolina. That
on the l4th of July, 1893, as such agent,
railroad of the receivers, a keg OF
whiskey consigned to "A. A. Singley, a
resident of said to,''n, which keg, as
shown by the way bill, was shipped
from Pleasant Ridge, in North Caro-
lima, to said town in South Carolina.
That he delivered the keg to the con-
signee, and that soon thereafter he
was arrested under warrant issued
by trial justice of said State, charged
with violating the provisions of an act
of the legislature of South Carolina
entitled San Act to prohibit the
manufacture and sale of Intoxicating
linnnps q @ n havana Crn ytyifGip 10 Gt,@ ~
except as herein provided" And that
he is yet in custody. The petition
further shows that the delivery by him
of the keg of whiskey aforesaid, was
made by him under and pursuant to the
laws regulating commerce between
States, and that the act of the legisla-
ture of the State under which he has
been arrested and held in custody is in
conflict with said interstate COM
merce law and is null and void so that
his arrest is illegal. He prays his dis
charge from arrest. The return of the
sheriff having him in custody, admits
of the said act by reason of the deliv-
cry of the keg of whiskey as stated,
and denies that the act is in conflict
with the Interstate commerce law.
And on the contrary that it comes
within the provisions of the act of Con-
gress approved August 9Th, 1890. COM
monty known as the Wilson act. 1t
further AYERS that the petitioner is in
custody for trial in the courts of the
State for crime against the State,
and that this court in comfy to the
courts of the State ought not to inter-
fere herein until the said State courts
have first passed upon the question in
volved in the case.
In Cantini versus Tillman, Ga Fed
eral Reporter, 07O, the alleged conflict
of the dispensary act with the consti-
tuition and laws of the United States
was discussed, and the validity of
which act was sustained. The opin-
ion, however, expressly reserved any
discussion of the validity of the 25th
section. The case at the bar raises the
issue on this section.
The petitioner is in custody under
the charge of violating section 25 Of
the act of the Legislature referred to.
This section is in these words:
mo person shall knowingly bring
into this State, or knowingly trans
port from place to place within this
State, by wagon, cart, or other vehicle,
or by any other means or mode of car
riage, any Intoxicating liquors, with
the intent to sell the same in this State
in violation Of law, or with intent that
the same shall be sold by any person,
or to aid any other person in such sale,
under penalty of $780, and costs for
each offense, and in addition thereto
shall be imprisoned in the county jail
for one year. In default of payment of
said fine and costs, the party shall
suffer an additional imprisonment of
one year: Any servant, agent. or en-
ployee of any railroad corporation, or
of any express company, or of any per-
sons, corporations, or associations do
ing business in this State as common
carriers, who shall remove any intoXi-
eating liquors from any railroad car,
vessel, or other vehicle of transporta-
tion, at any place other than the usual
and established stations, wharves, de-
pots, or places of business of such COM
mon carriers within some incorporated
city or town, where there is q dis
peDsary, or who shall aid in or consent
to such removal, shall be subject to q
penalty of 800, and imprisonment for
thirty days for every such offense
Provided That said penalty shall not
apply to any liquor in transit, when
changed from car to car to facilitate
transportation. All such liquor in
tended for unlawful sale in this State
may be seized in transit, and proceeded
against as if it were unlawfully kept
and deposited in any place. And any
steamboat, sailing vessel, railroad, ex-
press company, or other corporation
knowingly transporting or bringing
such liquor into the State, shall be
punished upon conviction by fine OF
five hundred dollars and costs for each
Aoffense. knowledge on the part of any
authorized agent of such company shall
be deemed knowledge of the com.
pany."
There can be no doubt that but for
the passage Of the Wilson act the pro
visions OF this section would be in con
flict with the Interstate commerce
law and void Bowman vs. Chicago
&C., 125 United States 465. Leisy vs.
Hardin 1874 United State, 1907. This
last case induced the pas ,age of the
Wilson act. Caldwell, d. in re Var
Vliet 43, Federal Reporter, 1855.
The Wilson act is as follows:
+" An act to limit the effect of the
regulations OF commerce between the
several States and with foreign coun
tries in certain cases." "That all fer
mented, distilled, or other Intoxicating
liquors or liquids, transported into any
State or Territory, orremaining there
in for use, consumption, sale, or stor
age therein shall upon arrival in sucl
State or Territory be subject to the
operation and effect Of the laws o
such State or Territory enacted in the
exercise of its police powers to the
same extent and i'm the same manner
as though such liquids or liquors hat
hoo .r1 in tntn H.. q