St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-05-01
THE STATE NOT A MONOPOLY

The decision of the South Carolina
supreme court as to the dispensary act
is worthy of consideration as having
much more than local bearing. That
veXatlouS law was repugnant. and even
dangerous. because it went so far beyond
the legitimate function OF the police
power of the state. Admitted that the
selling of liquors leads up to evils, so
that it is proper and desirable to regu-
late it, that even prohibition would
come within the lawful scope of police
administration. could there ever be any
where public sentiment to render
operative such measure of regulation,
1t does not follow that the state has del
egated, constitutional power to do more.
The dispensary law was not a meas
ure of regulation. as viewed by the SUI
preme court. In the first place, the
court held that III the citizen exists the
right to acquire, hold and transfer
property, to engage in legitimate trade,
this being a right which legislation is
powerless to take away. The court
found the fact to be that liquors are
universally recognized as property, that
the buying and selling thereof is iegiti-
mate commerce. They also found that
the dispensary act recognized this fact;
that the act did not assume this co.n-
merce to be morally wrong; it did not
set up that it could be injurious to the
public welfare; it gave this traffic coun-
tenance, absolutely recognized it as a
legitimate branch of trade, placed it in
the hands of the state without limit
upon its extent
What the dispensary act did, and all
that it did, was to establish monopoly.
Upon that question the court pro-
nounced the conclusion that the state
bad no right to engage in trade mo-
nopoly. or in any trading enterprise for
the purpose of monopoly; that the dis
pensary act could not be ''justly re-
garded as police regulation, but
simply as an act to increase the revenue
of the state and its subordinate govern
mental agencies" that the state had no
authority, no constitutional power. for
such purpose, to deprive the citizens
OF the state of the privilege of engaging
in traffic considered as in itself legiti-
mate by establishing monopoly in it
for itself, such arrogation being clearly
outside of the objects for which the
government was formed and of the
functions with which it was vested.
In the course of the decision an
nounced this pertinent illustration was
stated: ''If the act, instead of confin-
ing the privilege of selling liquor to the
state, had undertaken to confer sue II
exclusive privilege upon one or more
individuals, or upon a particular cor
poration, could there be any doubt that
such an exercise of the legislative
power would be unconstitutional"
The common sense of such deter
mination will not be inteliigently dis
puted; that the sound, constitutional
Interpretation was reached will not be
gainsaid. incidentally the decision ap-
plies to the "Gothenburg SYSTEM"
which, it is sometimes advocated, should
be adopted in Minnesota; therefore the
South Carolina decision has a more
comprehensive relevancy than the mere
correction of legislative error of an
! unconstitutional character in that one
state.
Gov. Tillman processes to be puzzled.
He does not know, he says, who can sell
whisky. He confesses, however. that
he does know the state cannot sell
whisky. Therefore he has really learned
something useful for Populist to know.
Now, if he will base his future executive
| acts upon the new light he has obtained,
that the state is not monopoly, and he
! lis autocrat, something will have been
gained for good government Dy the
/ perplexity he forced upon his state.