Birmingham age-herald., 1894-10-19
Causes Internal Revenue Commis-
 sioner Miller to Write
A VERY LENGTHY LETTER
An Important Question Brought Up-EmployeS May Go
 Home to Vote.

lisle udb loEWdIocu bo bhC dteoldCJ -SChCioA for his decision the letter of Internal Rev. enue commissioner Miller, which presents in detail the questions raised between Gov ernor Tillnan of South Carolina and the United States as to the jurisdiction of each in the enforcement of the South Carolina dispensary law. The letter is as follows:
 WASHINGTON, D. O., Oct. 16. Hon. John G. Carlisle, Secretary of the Treas urr-
 SIR: l enclose herewith a letter from Governor Tillman of South Carolina and a printed copy forwarded by him of the ''state dispensary law,'' and have the honor to request that the same be submit ted to the honorable attorney general for his opinion as to the course which should be taken by this office in the event of seiz- ures by state officers or conf. cation under the dispensary law of distilled spirits de- posted in distillery bonded warehouses under the internal revenue law.
 It is proper to state that the natural effect of acquiescence by this office in the course proposed to be taken would be the proba- blc complete destruction of the bunded warehouse system within the state, the consequent cessation of the business of man ufacturing distilled 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 spirits. But it appears also that under the law a distiller in the state cannot sell his product to private per sons within the state, nor, II rightly ap- prehend the provisions of the third sec- tion, the private products to be shipped out of the state, but only to stay commissioners or persons outside of the state and under regulations which would seriously incon- venience the shipper. Under such restric- tions there would hardly be any further law for the production of distilled spirits within the state. No distiller would be willing to produce an article to be sold only on compulsion to single purchaser and at tbe pric1 fixed by him.
 The question is broadly presented whether slate can so legisllte as incl dentaly to deprive the United S.a,es of one Of its declared sources of reven ue, and 1t appears to me proper matter for the con- sideration of the highest law officers of the government.
 The supreme court in Mccullough vs. Mary land, Wheat, 316, declared that sthe states have no power by taxation, or otherwise, to retard, impede, bui den 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
 And in Hannibal and St. Joe Railroad AdID tS. IluScU, 0O U. Q. 4OO, lC was Q6lQ that "neither the unlimited powers of 6 state to tax nor any of its large police powss CTS can be exercised so to work prac- tical ass umption of the powers con ierred by the constitution upon congress- and in numerous other cases 1t has held to the same effect.
 On the other hand, in such cases as the Boston Beer company vs. Massachu- setts, 97 U. s. 25, the right of the state to absolutely prohibit the manufacture and sale of Intoxicating liquors was upheld.
 Applying what appears 10 be the estab- lished law to the present case, it would seem that while the state of South Carolina has the right, in the exercise of its police power, to prohibit the manufacture of and tr.ffic in distilled spirits within the state, it is doubtful if it has right without pro- hibiiing the manufacture or traffic to practically take possession of the business in all of its details and to carry 1t on through its own agencies for it's own profits, thus perhaps forcing the United Statesto surrender the income derived by it from source heretofore relied on. It follows, of course, that if one slate may do this, all may, ano the police power of the states will have been 80 exercised as to work a practical assum ption of the powers of congress- and to impede, burden and coEtrUi the operation of it's laws.
 You will note that the governor proposes to recognize the lien of the United States upon the spirits in warehouses for taxes
 
 he law (sections 48 and 50 of the act of coneress, August 28, 1884, limits the right of withdrawal of spirits rom a warehouse to the distiller himself. The state now proposes 10 personate the disliller. Such authority has be en denied by United States courts to state officers. See McCullocb, Jr. vs. Henry Larg, United States circuit court, Washington district of Pennsylva- mia, at the May term, 1884, J. c. Bradley of the supreme court concurring.
 It is to be observed also thst it frequently happens that 8 disiiller is indebted to the government to a sum greater than the tax upon the spirits themselves then in ware- house. Such indebtedness is by section 8251, revised statutes, declared to be a lien upon the property and rights to property of the d1stiler. The taking of such spirits by the slate in the manner proposed will easily impair, If not del stroy the ability of the governme to collect it's debts.
 For my own guidance 1 wish to be par ticularly advised whether or not I may lawfully consent to permit the Withdrawal of spirits in bonded warehouses in the state ofSouth Carolina upon seizure therein by the state and the tender of tax to the collector, or upon judgment of forfeiture by the state court.
 Governor Tillman yesterday personally requested an early reply to this inquiry. He was told, however, that the matter is under consideration and will be disposed of as soon as possible. Respectfully yours.
 JOSEPH s. MILLER, Commissioner.
 MAY GO HOME TO VOTE.
 Without issuing direct order Secretary Smith has allowed it to be- understood that all employees of the interior department