The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1894-10-24

Warehouses VS.. Dispensary.
Commissioners Miller Writes to
Secretary Carlisle.
WAsA1NeroN, Oct. l8.-Secretary
Cariisles has forwarded to Attorney
General 0iney, for his decision, the
letter of Revenue Commissioner Mil
Ter, which presents IN detail the ques-
ton raised between Governor Tillman
of South Carolina and the United
States authorities as to the juris.
diction of each in the enforcement
or the South Carolina dispensary law
The letter is as follows
WASHINGTON, D. C., Oct Is, 1894.
Hon. John G. Carlisle, Secretary Of
the Treasury
Sir: I enclose herewith a letter
from Governor Tillman of South
Carolina, and a printed copy for
warded by him of the State dispen-
sary law, aud ! have the honor to re-
quest 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 confscation, under the dispen-
sary law, of distilled spirits deposi
ted in distillery bonded warehouses
under the internal revenue laws.
It is proper to state that the
natural effect of acquiescene by this
Office in the course proposed to be
taken would be the probable COM
plete destructiob of the bonded
warehouse system within the State
the consequent cessation of the. busi-
ness of manufacturing distilled spirits
under the internal revenue laws. and
the loss to the United States of further
income from that source
The dispeosary law, it 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 disthler in the State
cannot sell his product to private
persons within the State. nor. if l
rightly appreheni the provisions Of
the third section, to private persons
to be shipped out of the State, but
only to the State commissioner or to
pereons outside of the State and
under regulations which would
seriously Inconvenience the shipper:
Under such restrictions there would
hardly be any further lawful, produc-
ton of distilled spirits within the
State. No distiller would be willing
to produce an article to be sold only
on compulsion to single purchaser
and at the price fixed by him. .z.
The questions IS broadly presented
whether State can so legislate as
incidentally to deprive the United
States of one of its declared sources
Of revenue, and it appers to me a
proper matter for The consideration Of
the highest law officer of the govern
ment.s-The Supreme Court in Me
Cullougb VS.. Maryland, 4, Wheat,
316., declared that s'the States have
no power, by taxation or otherwise.
to retard, impede, burden, or in any
manner control the operations of the
Constitutional laws enacted by Con-
gress to carry into effect the powers
vested to the national government.
In Hannibal and st. j. r. r. Co.,
VS.. Husen, 95, q. s., 965, it was held
that .sneither the unlimited powers of
State to tax, nor any of its large
police powers, can be exercise so as
to work apractical assumption of the
powers conferred by the Constitution
upon Congress I"
And in numerous other cases it has
been held to tbesame effect.
On the other hand, in such cases as
the Boston Beer Co, vs. Massachu-
setts. 81. 2. s., 25 the right Of the
State TO absolutely prohibit the maui
facture and sale of intoxicating IL
applying What .ppeas to beahs
established law to the present case, It
would seem that while the State of
South .Garelinar~ has ~.heright, in-the
exercise of its police power to pro-
hibit the manufactnre sof and traffic:
in distilled spiias within he State,
it is doubtful if It has right, without
prohibiting the manufacture or traffic,
to practically take possession of the
business in all its details and carry it
ON, and through its own agencies for
its own profits, thus perhaps forcing
the united States to surrender the in
come deprived by the source hereto