The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-10-19
THE DISPENSARY LAW.
THE QUESTION AS TO TIE yURkS-
DicTIoS oFITs ENFORCEMENT.
Csnm'ssionsr Millsr's Letter 10 Secretary
Carhsis Shove Plainly That Hs Would
Deny Tiliman's Request

-
WASHINGTON. Oct. s.-secretary Car.
hsie mas forwarded to Attorney General
o'hey' for his decision, the letter OF In
'erhai Revenue Commissioner Nil
ier' which presents In detail the
questions raised between Governor
"''ah' OF South Carolina, and
'he United States authorities, as
10 the Jurisdiction OF each I'm the en-
'oreement of the South Carolina dispen-
'a'S law The letter is as follows:
Mr.. NILLERs oBJEorIoy.
- slr,-l enclose herewith a letter from
y aaUsSInor Iillman, of South Carolina, and
.. @'.SL.inte1 copy. forwarded by him, OF the
bora D'spehsary Law" and | have the
hhoL sHh,n, 20 request that the same may be
saotHitted TO the honorable Attorney-1;en-
eral Tor his opinion.
oes Is proper TO state that the natural
C,. omert ol acquiescence by this Office in the
the nr opposed to be taken would be
tne probable complete destruction of tho
Sonded warehouse system within the
ptdtc, tne consequent cessation ~ tha
ousiness OF manufacturing distilled spirits
loss Het =, ',e u, internal revenue laws. and the
no,s, !" tne united States OF further in
come from that source -"
bsan uispensary law. IL appears. has
9een % construed by the state sunren,a
mann,an, not absolutely prohibiting the
Rut n an,ia ana sale OF distilled spirits
dast,ifaa aPpears also that under the law A
IsuIler In the State cannot sell his nro'
80 20 private persons within the state
81 -, II ! rightly apprehend the provisions
ba shlr,nL1u section. to private persons to
stg sne state commissioner or TO persons out,
,,hJot vi the state, and under regulations
mhiiilch would seriously inconyenionce ,hs
y,ntti Under such restrictions, there
dnctIon" "a,piy nf 6e any further lawful pro.
Stata" UI distilled spirits within tha
Ssate. No distiller would no wiIIj,,, ,e
PtGguuce an article TO be sold only on co,,
prica a. % single purchaser. and M y
price hxed by him. '''' "'
WHAT THE REQUEST MEANS.
me question In broadI, ,.....,
HIether state can so IepisI,td ~, il
one ot TO deprive the United States os
g. a.,, VI Its declared sources of reyenTs and
consjGorass,to 10 me a proper matter for the
, ~. OF the highest law otnco ~,
Ine , government The Sunrema cour, o,,e ~.
al uiIoeh VS.. Maryland 4 Wheat Sie
t, thv'iares that the States have no mower
psdo Ds eaNa,loh or otherwise, to retard. i'm,
pede, burden, or In any manner cnntr"i
the operations OF the constitutianaI paaa
hhocteu ny Congress TO carry into eff.ct
oe ome powers vested IN the National Gov
J,sd,is And In Hannibal and ST.
g. 4. iS5 s''uoSu II 10 company vs.; Hnsen. 80
IL.
,n,. M powers OF a State TO tax. nor
my OF lts large police powers. can be ex-
iI,Ised so az TO work a practical assump-
iJ ,it,,tViLot 81 III" powers conferred by the Con-
Itutioh upon Congress"
Ana IN numerous other cases IL has
'eeh held TO the same effect. on the other
lahd' I'm such cases az the Boston Beer
.otPahy vs.. Massachusetts,. % u. S.,
}, the right OF the State 10 absolutely
rohibit the manufacture md sale OF in
OMcatlng liquors was upheld
applying what appears TO be the estab-
shed law TO the present case Il would
eem that while the State of South Caro-
ma mas the right In the exercise OF It's
ollce power TO prohibit the manufacture
and traffic In distilled spirits within 2
ne state. II II doubtful n II has a right.
ltnout prohibiting the manufacture or
'afilc, TO practically take possession OF
ne business In all It's details. and 10
AIRY it on through It's own agencies and
)r us own profits thus. perhaps. forcing
lie United states TO surrender the income
eriyed by II from a source heretofore
lied upon. IL follows, Of course that
one state may do this. all may. and
le police power OF the States will have
zen so exercised as 10 work a practical
sumption OF the powers Of Congress"
ID to Impede, burden. and control the
eration or its laws"
THE WITHDRAWAL or SPIRITS.
You Will not understand that the Gov
nor proposes to recognize the lien OF
e United states upon the spirits Ia
lrehouse for the taxes due thereon and
y the same.
rhe law. Sec. 4s and 80 OF the act OF
ngress. August ~, 1894, limits the right
withdrawal OF spirits from warehouse
the distiller himself. The State now
opposes to personate the distiller. Such
thOrity has been denied by United
ltes courts To State officers See Nc.
lloch. Jr., w Henry Large, United
ites Circuit Court, Western district OF
mn, at the May term, 1884. Justice
adley, OF the Supreme Court, con-
rring
I is to be observed also that n FREE
emily happens that n dlstiller g IN
Dted 10 the Government In a sum
,ater than the tax upon the spirits
then in the warehouse. Such
ebtedness is. by sec. 2Sl II. s., de-
red 10 be a lien upon the property
rights TO property OF distller. The
.nner proposed might easily impair
not destroy, the ability OF the Gov
ment 10 collect It's debt.
or my own guidance ] wish 10 be
'ticuarly advised whether or not
v lawfully consent 10 permit the
hdrawal Of spirits In bonded ware
lses I'm the State Of South Caro- Ina
N seizure therein by the state and
der OF the tax " the collector, or
m judgment OF forfeiture by the State
rts.
overnor Tillman personally yesterday
lested an early reply TO his inquiry
was told, however, that the matter
under consideration and will be DIS
sd OF as soon az possible
Respectfully yours
igned) JOS. S. MILLER. Com.