The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1894-10-16

the following language 1.-The busi-
ness 1.-THE management and sale Of
liquor) was at and before the organiza-
tion OF the government and Is properly
at all times q private pursuit OF the
people, as much SO as the manufacture
and sale of brooms, tobacco, cloths and
the dealing In tea and rice, and the
raising of potatoes" This case Is in
tween liquor and the ordinary COM
modities Of life as, enunciated in the
case as Crowley vs, Christensen, u.
s., supra /; Black on Int, Lig., supra !;
State vs. Turner, 18 S. c., and other
authorities he~reinbefore mentioned.
IL liquor is to be placed on the same
footing with the articles mentioned In
the Indiana case, then hat decision
was right. But II there is that dis
tinction for which we contend, then
the case is valueless as an authority,
being decided on principles.
The principles upon which that case
was decided would have forced the
court that rendered 1t to have declar-
ed null and void q statute entirely pro-
hibiting the traffic In liquor, although
there is no longer any doubt as to the
constitutionality OF such statutes.
A STATE CAN. PRESCRIBE CONDITIONS.
Respondents next% objection are that
the act is in violation of the 4th, 5th
and 14th amendments to the Constitu-
tion of the United States. Those
amendments have no application to this
case. In Smith VS.. Maryland, IL How,
the court says: eff rested on that
clause in the constitution of the United
States, which prohibits the issuing ia
warrant, but on probable cause sup
ported by oath, the answer is that this
Restraints the issue of warrants only
under the laws of the United States
and has no application 10 State pro-
cess"
Chief Justice Fuller delivering the
opinion of the court in Wilkerson vs.
Rahrer, 140 U. s., says:
1.-The power of the State to impose
restraints and burdens upon persons
| and property in conservation q promo
tion of the public health, good order,
and prosperity, Is a power originally
and always belonging to the States,
not surrendered by them to the general
government nor directly restrained by
the constitution of the United States
and essentially exclusive. And this
court has uniformly recognized State
legislation l~egitimately for police pur-
poses, as not in the sense of the con-
stitution, necessarily infringing upon
any right, which has been conflded
expressly or by implication, to the
Amendment in forbidding q State to
make or enforce any law abriding the
privileges or immunities Of citizens OF
the United States, or to deprive any
person of life, liberty or property with
out due process of law, or to deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the law did not
invest and did not attempt to invest
Congress, with power to legislate sub
jects which are within the domain OF
State Legislation n \ in short, it is
not to be doubted that the power to
make the ordinary regulations ofpolice
cannot be assumed by tho national
government, and hat in this respect it
is not interfered with by the Four
teenth Amendment.
Mr.. Justice Harlan delivering the
opinion of the court in Mugler We.
Kansas, 12S U. S., sustains this view
and quotes with approval the following
from the case of Barber vs.. Connolly
but neither the amendment (I4th)-
broad and comprehensive as it is--nor
any other amendment was designed to
interfere with the power of the State
sometimes termed its police power to
pISSCIlDo ICSu ld0lOuS W pTOIuOGc UuS
health, peace, morals, education and
good order of the people and to legis-
late SO as to increase the industries of
the State, develop its and
add to it's wealth and prosperity"
Under the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States liquor was
held to be subject of IN and
national in its character. 1t was set
tied at an early date in the history of
the national government that the
State under its police power could leg
lslate upon those subjects of local ma
ture until Congress saw fit to Interfere
and ~supercede the State law. 1t was,
however, q yexed question for a long
as to the right Of the State, under it's
police power, to subject to it's laws
those subjects of interstate commerce
which were national in character, in
the absence of Congressional legisla-
tiOn upon the subject.
In the case of Leisy VS.. Hardin, 1875
y. S. the court had under considera-
ton the act of Iowa, which forbade
any common carrier to bring into the
State of Iowa, for any person Or per-
sons or corporation, any Intoxicating
liquors from any other State or Terri
tory of tho United States without first
nov lhS oOSb luIulSlCu "lGll " CcIUlu-
cate under the seal of the county au-
ditor of the county of which said Ii
quOr was to be transported or was con-
signed for transportation, certifying
that tho consignee, or persons to whom
such liquors was to be transported,
conveyed or delivered, was authorized
to sell Intoxicating liquors in such
county.
BY divided court it. was held that
such act was unconstitutional; that
the police power of a State is subordi-
nate to the commercial, power, and
consequently that a State could not
prescribe conditions upon which IL
quors could be transported into such
State from another State and also
that liquors transported into a State
from another State could be sold in
the original packages, oven when the
laws of the State, into which such
liquor was transported prohibited the
sale. The decision in this case caused
the passage Of the act of Congress Of
1890, and the reason leading to it's
adoption are well expressed in the dis
senting opinion of Mr.. Justice Gray
~(concurred In by Mr.. Justice Harlan
and Mr.. Justice Brewery in that case,
in the following words {: