The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1894-10-24

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18.-Secretary
Carlisle has forwarded to Attorney Cen
eral Olney for his decision, the letter
Of Revenue Commissioner Miller,
which presents In ditall the question
raised between Governor Tillman OF
South Carolina and the United States
authorities as to the jurisdiction OF
each in the enforcement of the South
Carolina DispensaEy law.
The letter is as folio VS.:
Washington, Oct. Is, 1894.
Hon. John G. Carlisle. Secretary of
Treasury.
Sir: enclose herewith a letter fro m
Governor Tillm IN CT South Carolina
and printed copy for " arded by him
of the "State Dispensafy" law, and l
have the honor to request that the
same may be submitted to the Hon.
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 Dispensary law. of distilled
spirits deposited In distillery bonded
warehouses under the internal revenue
laws. It is proper to state that the
natural effect of acqulescence by this
office in the course proposed to be
taken would be the probable complete
destruction of the bonded warehouse
system within the State; the consequent
cessation Of the business Of manufac.
turing distilled spirits under the inter-
nal revenue laws and the loss to the
United States Of further income from
that source.
The Dispensary law, it appears, has
been construed by the State Supreme
Court as not absolutely prohib iSing
the manufacture and sale Of dis titled
spirits. But it appears also that under
the law distiller in the State cannot
sell his product to private persons
within the State, nor If l rightly ap-
prehend the provisions Of the Third
Section, to private persons to be ship
ped out of the State, but only to the
State Com missioner or to persons out.
side Of the State and under regula-
tions which would seriously lnconVeo-
ience the shipper. Under snch restric.
tons, there would hardly be any fur
ther lawful production Of distilled
spirits within the State. No distiller
would be willing to produce an article
to be sold only on compulsion to q
single purchaser, and at the price hxeo
by him.
The question Is broadly presented
whether a State can so legislate as
incidentally to deprive the United
States of one of its declared sources OF
revenue and it appears to me proper
matter for the consideration OF the
highest law officer of the government.
Suprem9 Court in McCulloch VS.. Mary
land, 4, Wheat 3lS, declared that "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
Congress to carry into effect the powers
vested in the national government.
And in Hannibal and St. j. Il. 4. Co.
vs.. Husen, 95 U. s., 465, it...was held
that neither the unlimited powers OF
State to tax nor any of its large police
powers can be exercised so as to Work
8 practical assumption OF the powers
conferred by the Constitution upon
Congress. And in numerous other
cases it has been held to the same ef-
feet. On the other hand such cases as
Boston Beer Go. vs.. Massachusetts,, 81
y. S., 25, the right Of the State to abso-
lutely prohibit the manufacture ana
sale of Intoxicating liquors was upheld.
Applying what appears to be the es-
tablished law to the present case, 1t
would seem that while the State OF
South Carolina has the right in the e1
ercise of its police power to prohibit
the manufacture of and traffic In dis
titled spirits within the State, 1t is
doubtful If it has a right without pro-
hibiting the manufacture or traffic to
practically take possession OF business
in all it's details and carry 1t on, and
through its own agencies, for its own
profits, thus perhaps forcing the Unit
ed States to surrender the income de-
rived by this source. It follows, Of
course, that If one State may do this,
all may, aud the police power of the
States will have been 80 exercised as
to work practical mption of the
powers of Congress" and to Impede,
burden and control the operation OF its
laws"
You will note that the Governor pro-
poses to recognize the lien Of the y nit
ed States upon the spirits in the ware
houses for the taxes due thereon, and
to pay the same. The law (sections
4S and so OF the Act of Congress, Au-
gust % 1894 limits the right OF With
drawal of spirits from the warehouse
to the distiller himself. The State now
proposes to personate the dlstiller.
Such authority has been denied by
United States Courts to stay Off GERS.
See McCulloch, Jc., vs.. Henry Large,
United States Circuit Court, Western
District OF Pennsylvania, at the May
term, 1894, Justice Bradley of the Su-
preme Conrt concurrlng.
It is to be observed also that 1t ire.
quentlY happens that dtstiller Is IN
debted to the government n a sum
greater than the tax upon the spirits
themselves then 10 the warehouse.
Such Indebtedness is by section 1881,
Revised Statutes, declared to be lien
upon the property and rights to prop.
erty of the distiller. Taxing spirits
By the State in the manner proposed
might easily impair if not destroy the
ability of the govern1asnt to collect
It's debt. For my Own guidance, l
wish to be particularly advised Wheth-
er or not may lawfully consent to
permit the withdrawal of spirits in
bonded warehouses in the State Of
South Carolina upon seizure to sreia by
the State and tender of tax to the
Collector, or upon Judgment Of for
fetture by the State Court.
Governor Tillman personally yester
day requested an early reply to his
inquiry. He was told however that
the matter is under consideration and
will be disposed of as soon as possible.
Respectfully yours.
(Signed) Jos. S. MILLER,
Commissioner.