The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1893-09-27
THE PALMETTO TREE.
Shall 1t Become n Trade Mark for
Dispensary Liquor ?-POints Look
ing that Way-AbIe Efforts OF j.
AItheus Johnson. ESQ.

Ing that Way-AbIe Efforts OF j
AItheus johnson, ESQ.
While the Press and Banner does not sym
pathize with the effort Of Governor Tillman
to use the Palmetto tree as trade mark on
whlskey bottles, yet We think. he has secured
the services Of the right mani. Altheus
johnson, Esq-to prosecute the case, and
whether Mr.. johnson succeeds or not, we
would congratulate him on his ability In
the conduct Of the case. which Is attracting
more or less attention throughout the coun.
try. Mr.. johnson is q native OF Abbeville
County, and since his residence In Washing.
ton he has gained prominence as q lawyer al
the Bar Of the capital of the. Nation. Speak.
US lie says:
Washington, n. c., Sep. 20. 1893.
I feel pretty confident that shall prevail
In this attempt to constrain the Com mission.
er through the courts, though I think It prob
able that the Commissioners, under the cir.
disarmed by the Supreme Court Of the United
States. think, too, that the Commissioner
will have losing hand from the start.
No one has ever before sought to mandamus
thinking. apparently, that he had such con-
troll of the subject as precluded suit against
him, the object Of which could would be 10
direct speci itically what he should do. The
ters will be revoutionized II the courts shall
exercise The Jurisdiction over 1t which man.
danus proceedings imply. The notion of the
office heretofore has been that 1t was Its own
expounder OF the law In trademark matters,
and 1t doesn't relish the present attempt TO
purcture one Of the chronological bumps
which TO this time has been permitted 10
grow unmolested.
q or ~ ho 70 Nf r..
ed TO prevent other persons from using 1t ex-
cept upon the one thing Of intoxicating H.
quors, the thing for which the state has
adopted 1t as q trade. mark and that is the
full effect OF the registration OF any trade
mark-to prevent others using 1t for the same
purpose-that Is, in connection with the same
articles OF trade.
We have received q copy Of the briei
and We make an extract, from which 1t
will be seen that Mr. Johnson thoroughly un-
derstands the situation in this State. We
copy as follows:
"It will not be necessary, In this court, to
say any thing In vindication, legally or other
wise, Of the South Carolina dispensary law
under which this relator is engaged in trade.
the public prints, has been flercely assaiied
In every known way, not only through the
courts but by pathetic representations before
the public as to the shame which a proud old
to the leve OF the keeper OF a grog.shop, It's
Governor being head bar-keeper The ago
nizing OF some OF the patriots as to the dis
grace brought upon the old State has been
truly entertaining. But it is the same old
fight, with slight change OF tactics, that has
been offered 10 every drastic measure ever
enacted for the destruction of the indi-
vidual saloon keeper and liquor dealer. The
judicial history of legislation for the suppress
sion, or stringent regulation OF the whiskey
traffic shows the desperate ferceness with
which such legislation has always been OPP
posed and, despite the clear and uni istaka-
BILE tones In which the courts OF last resort
have spoken as to the rights of the individual
trader as opposed TO such legislation: the con-
whenever such legislation invades new ter
ritory. Just now the judicial scent to which
the opponents Of this law seem to be yelping
Is the monopoly feature OF IL; they say that
the State has created In Its own behalf a mon
opoly in one kind OF business and that. there
fore, the act Is unconstitutional and void.
As though State, when empowered, In its
discretion to prohibit tn toto the liquor traffic.
that is less, even to designating the kind OF
persons by whom or the manner In which,
the traffic shall be conducted. One would
think 1t selfevident that the monopoly when
in respect of n business or occupation that the
public good required should be equally opel,
10 all parties who chose to engage therein.
and not that which is created 1n respect OF
business that exists simply and solely by tol-
erance OF the law, that is, business which
the law may at any time strike down as det.
rimental to the public interest. as Is confess
ed, on the highest judicial authority, to be
the case with the business Of trafficing In In
toxicating liquors, As 10 such a business the
State may do as 1t deems proper; and the
Individual, as against the expressed will OF
the State can assert no right to engage In IT.
The principle that condemns monopolies has
OF course no application, the rights OF the in
dividual being subordinate to the fiat OF the
State In suoh matter. However, all these
questions can very we'll be left to the South
Carolina courts, where they belong"