The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1894-10-22

under the internal revenue laws.
| II Is proper to state that the acques-
! ceice by this office in the course proposed TO
be taken would be the probable complete
| destruction of the bonded warehouse sys-
| TEN within the state The CONSEQUENT cessa-
ton OF the business Of manufacturing dis
| uiied spirits under the internal revenue laws
| ana the loss TO the United States OF fur
| Their income from that source.
The desperate law, it appears, has been
| construed by the state supreme court as not
absolutely prohibiting The manufac-
| lure and sale OF distilled spirits.
| hut IL appears also that under the
| law dfstiller in the state cannot sell his
! product to private persons within the state
nor If rightly apprehend the provisions of
! the third section, to private persons to be
| shipped out of the state, but only to state
! commissioners or to persons outside Of the
! state and under regulations which would
| seriously Inconvenience the shipper. Under
such restrictions there would hardly he
any further lawful production of distilled
spirits within the state. No t,!stiiler would
be wiling to produce an article 10 be sold
only on conpuision to a single purchaser,
anu al the price fixed By him.
The question is broadly presented y,batl,-
er state can 50 legis!ate as incidentally
TO deprive the United States OF one Of he
declared sources OF revenue, and Il ;ionears
to me proper matter for the consideration,
of The highest law officers CT the govern
meut.
The supreme court in AIcCu}loch VS.
Maryland, " heat 3f6 declared that .t1e
states have no power by taxation or other
wise, to ratard, impede, burden O.. in any
manner control the opera tjons OF the con-
stituttonal laws enacted by congress to car
~ into effect the powers vested in the
national government. And in Hannibal
and St. Joseph Railroad Company rs.
mi +o4a
that neither the unlimited powers OF n state
to tax nor any of its large police powers
can be exercised SO q to work practical
assumption of the powers conferred by the
constitution upon congress, and in numerous
other cases il has held to the same effect
ION the other hand, in such eases as the /
Boston Beer COMPANY vs.. Massachusetts
~ United States, y. the rieat OF the state |
to absolutely prohibit the manufacture and |
sale OF Intoxicating liquors was upheld.
applying what appears to be the estab- I
lshed law TO the present case, it would {
seem that, while the state OF South Carolina
has the right in the exercise OF its po-
lice power to prohibit the manufacture OF f
and the traffic in distilled spirits within
The state, it IS doubtful if it has the right,
without prohibiting the manufacture or
traffic, to practically take possession of the
business IN all its details and to carry 1t on
and through its own agencies fer its own
profits, thus perhaps forcing the United
States TO surrender tho income divided by il
from source heretofore relied upon. 1t
follows OF course. that if one state may do
this all may, and the police power OF the
states viii have been sc exercised a. to
work a practical assumption OF the powers
4 congress-, and to impede, burden and
control the operation Of It's laws
You viii note that the governor pro-
,0sod to recognize the lien OF the United
IA fq.I in no {
ne taxes due thereon and to pay the same.
"'fhe law Sections forty-eight ard fifty
+ the act of congress, August %, 1850 Him.
IS the right Of the withdrawal OF spirits
rom warehouse to the distiller himself.
re state now proposes u perscnate the
istilier. Such authority has been denied /
y United States courts to state officers
&c McCulloch, il, ". Henry Large. United /
tatcs circuit court, western district of
at the May term, 1884, Jus
zee Bradley, of the supreme court, con-
Jrring.
1T IS to he observed also that IT fire.
uently happens that d!stiller is indebted
the government in a sum great ter tIan
ie tax upon the spirits themselves then in =
afehouse' Sue! i0deAL4-l.4--------,--- -
.t5,. my own guidance J wish 20 pc par
lilariv advised whether or not may law
~ consent TO permit the Wi5htf&"il q -
irjts II bonded warehcu@es IN the STAGE 81
lItu Carolina upon seizure hftA @'i - ny ri
,ta ana tine tender Of the TAX 70 the col =
,tor. or uuo1 Judgment OF forfeiture by ,
e state clare. v
.Corarnor Yu.man personally yesterday
auested an early reply 10 this inquiry.
E was toIl, however, that the matter : !
ider consideration and viii be disposed q
J soon Us possible. Respectfully yours
.JJS43p33 :. AiILLE3 Commissioner.
Merit is best brought oal by tar test OF .
Tu&t is why 1r. Prices t|aE-
q Powder zvrpa ssed ~ others ~ the l
o,lu's Columbian exposition.
--,...,....n. :. T,.s..i tltnini;tar.