The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-10-19
TILLMAN AND THE LIQUOR.
The Governors Claim Referred IL the
Attorney General.

tary Cariisle-If Gov. TiIlman's Claim |
Holds Good the Government May Be I
Cut out of Much of It's Income From |
Liquor Taxes.
Washington. oct. 1s.-Secretary Car
isle has forwarded to Attorney General
o,rey for his decision the letter of Inter
nal Revenue Commissioner Miller. which
presents in detail the questions raised
oatveen Gov. Tiuman of South Carolina
and the United States authorities as to
the jurisdiction of each in the enforce
nert Of the South Carolina dtspensary
Law. The letter is as follows:
Washington. D. C. oct Is, 1894.
Hon John G. Carlisle, Secretary of the
treasury:
SRI enclose herewith letter from
GOV TilIman of South CAROLINA and
printed copy forwarded by him of the
state dispensary' law, and / nave the
honor to request that the same may be
submitted to the honorable Attorney
General for his opinion as to the course
which should be taken by this office in
the event of seizures by state officers for
,orfscation under the dispensary law of
distilled spirits deposited in distillery
bonded warehouses under the internal
revenue laws.
II is proper to state that the natural re-
suit 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 distilled spiS-
ITS under the internal revenue laws AMI
the loss to the United States of further
income from that source.
The diSpensary law, il 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
q distiller in the state cannot sell his
product to private persons within the
state. nor, if I rightly apprehend the pro-
visions of the third section, the goods are
not to be shipped out of the state but
only to the state commissioner, or if to
persons outside the state. under regula-
lions which would seriously inconvenience
the shipper Under such restrictions
there would hardly be any further lawful
production of distilled spirits within the
state. No distiler would be willing to
produce article to be sold only on
compulsion to a single purchaser, and 1T
the price fixed by him.
The question is broadly presented
whether a state can so legislate as Incl
dentalIy to deprive the United States of
one OF its declared sources of revenue
and it appears to me a proper matter for
T.
dcer of the government.
The supreme court in McCulloch
Us. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316 declared
that the states have no power,
by taxation or otherwise, to retard, i'm
pede, 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 govern
ment."
And in the Hannibal and St Joe Rail-
road Company VS.. Husen, IS L. S. 49,
it was held that neither the unlimited
powers of a state to tax nor any of it's
large police powers can be exercised so
as to work a practical assumption of the
powers conferred by the constitution upon
Congress, And in numerous other cases
it was held to the same effect
on the other hand. in such cases as the
Boston Beer Company VS.. Massachusetts
~ L. S, %, the right of the state to alb
solutely prohibit the manufacture and
sale of intoxicating liquors was upheld.
Applying what appears to be the es-
tahtshed law to the present case, it would
seem that while the state of South Car
olna has the right, in the exercise of its
police power, to prohibit the manufacture
of, and traffic in distilled spirits within
the state it is doubtful if it has a right
without prohibiting the manufacture or
traffic to practically take possession of
the business in all it's details and to carry
it on for it's own profits, thus perhaps
forcing the United States to surrender the
income derived by it from a source there
tofore relied upon.
1t follows of course, that if one state
may dc this, all may, and the police power
OF the state will have been
Il so exercised as to work
practical assumption of the powers
4 Of Congress- and impede, burden and
control the operations of its laws" You
VIII note that the government proposes
H 10 recognize the lien of the United States
upon the spirits in the warehouse for
the taxes thereon, and to pay the same.
The law SECTIONS As and 50 of the act of
congress of August %, 1884, limits the
3 right OF withdrawal of spirits from
warehouse to the distiIler himself. The
state now proposes to personate the dis
llller Such authority has been denied by
nited States courts to state officers. See
NcCulloch, Jr., VS.. Henry Large, United
states circuit court western district Of
Pennsylvania, at the May term 1SS4-Jus-
lice Bradley of the supreme court con
curing.
a IT. is to be observed also that it fire.
quently happens that distller is indebted
10 the government in sum greater than
the tax on spirits themselves then in the
warehouse. Such Indebtedness is by sec
non Sol R. S, declared to be lien on the
property and rights to property of the dis
uIIer The taking of the spirits by the
'laie in the manner proposed, might
easily impair, If not destroy the ability of
me government to collect its debt.
or my own guidance wish to be par
I'olarly advised whether or not 1 may
lawfully consent to permit the with
lIaWal OF spirits in bonded warehouses in
.n' state of South Carolina upon seizure
Ht,eh by the state and tender of the tax
n 90 me collector, or upon judgment of for
Iellure by the state court
GOV Itllman personally yesterday re-
HueS,ed an early reply to his inquiry He
HdS lold however that the matter is I'M
-e' consideration and will be disposed Of
as soon as possible Respectfully yours,
Jos. S. Miller
Commissioner.