The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1894-10-23
THE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER
MILLER.
A Clear and Strong Statement of the
Governments POsition-An Early
Decision Desired by Both Parties.

A Clear and Strong Statement of the
Governments POsition-An Early
Decision Desired by Both Parties.
The following is the letter of Com
missioner Miller concerning the ques-
tion at issue between the State ana
Federal governments as to the jurisdic-
tion of each in the enforcement of the
South Carolina dispensary law. Sec
retary Carlisle has forwarded this let
ter to the Attorney General and re-
quested his opinion:
WASHINGTON, d. c., Oct. 16, 1894.
Hon. John G. Carlisle, Secretary Of
the Treasury:
Sir: / enclose herewith letter
from Governor Tillman of South Caro-
lima, and printed copy forwarded by
him of the State dispensary law, and
l have the honor to request that the
same may be submitted to the honor
able Attorney General for his opinion
as to the course which should be taken
by this Office in the evont of seizures
by State officers for confiscation, under
the dispensary law, of distilled spirits
deposited in distillory bonded ware
houses under the internal revenue
laws.
1t is proper to state that the natural
effect OF acquiescence by this Office in
the course proposed to be taken would
be the probable complete destruction
OF the bonded warehouse system within
the State; the consequent cessation Of
the business of manufacturing distill-
ed spirits under the internal revenue
laws, and the loss to the United States
of further income from that source.
The dispensary law, it appears, has
been construed by the State Supreme
Court as not absolutely prohibiting the
manufacture and sale of distilled spir-
its. But it appears also that under
the law distiller in the State cannot
sell his product to private persons with
in the State, nor, If rightly appre-
hend the provisions Of the third sec
tion, to private persons to be shipped
out Of the State, but only to the State
commissioner or to persons outside Of
the State and under regulations which
would seriously Inconvenience the ship
per. Under such restrictions there
would hardly be any further lawful
production of distilled spirits within
the State. No distiller would be will
ing to produce an article to be sold
only on compulsion to @ single pur-
chaser and at the price fixed by him.
The question is broadly presented
whether State can so legislate as in
cidentally TO deprive the United States
OF one of its declared sources Of reve
matter for the. consideration of the
highest law officer of the government.
The Supreme Court in Mccullough vs.
Maryland, 4, Wheat, 316., declared
that =" the States have no power, by
taxation or otherwise, to retard, inn
pcde, burden, or in any manner control
the operations Of the Constitutional
laws enacted by Congress to carry into
effect the powers vested In the national
government"
In Hannibal and ST. j. II. R. Co., vs.
Husen, 05, U. S., 465, 1t was held that
"neither the unlimited powers Of q
State to tax, nor any of its large police
powers, can be exercised so as to work
pract cal assumption of the powers
conferred by the Constitution upon
Congress"
And Ia numerous other cases 1t has
been held to the same effect.
On the other hand, In such cases as
the Boston Beer Co. VS. Masse chusetts,
81, u. S., 20, the right of the State tc
absolutely prohibit the manufacture