The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1895-03-20

CHARLESTON, S. c., March 15.-The
State dispensary law received another
black eye in the United States Court to-
day when District Judge Brawley handed
down decision in the libel case Of the
schooner, Carolina. The facts OF the case
briefly are as follows: On February 18th
last, the schooner Carolina, duly enrolled
and licensed for the coasting trade under
the United States laws, sailed from Sa-
vannah, and crossed the bar at Charles
ton on February 25th, about 8 o'clock p.
m. She reached her wharf in this city
about o'clock a. M, on February 26th,
having on board six packages marked
whiskey and twenty-six packages mark
ed vinegar, but which investigation
proved to contain whiskey.
While lying at the dock aud before her
cargo was unloaded, she was seized by
the Chief Constable, under section aS Of
the dispensary law, which provides that
"auy wagon, cart, boat or other convey
ance transporting liquors at night, other
than regular passenger and freight steam
ers and railway cars, shall be liable to
seizure and conf1scation, and to that end
the officer shall cause the same to be duly
advertised and sold and the proceeds sent
to the State commission"
Jervey, the captain and owner, and his
crew were arrested by the constabulary
and turned over to the County officials.
Jervey applied for habeas corpus to
Circuit Judge Simonton Of the United
States Circuit Court and was ordered to
be released by that Court on Tuesday
last. In the meantime Jervey, the owner,
applied for libel to the United States
District Court to obtain possession of his
vessel and it was this case which Judge
Brawley decided to-day.
In his decision Judge Brawley says:
"Here Is q schooner duly enrolled as
United States vessel sailing from the port
Of reighboring State over the high seas
laden with an undischarged cargo, her
transit completed but until discharged
still occupied in the business of naviga-
ton, seized without a warrant or other
process Of law. 1t being clear that the
conduct complained of is, if illegal, q
marine tort committed on vessel of the
United States, lying in the waters Of the
United States, this Court cannot consist
emily with its duty refuse the jurisdiction
with which it is clothed by the constitu-
ton and laws, when its aid Is invoked by
q party entitled to demand it."
The order concludes as follows: "1n
these cases there was no process in the
State Court; no warrant. Inc ConStapIe
seized with strong hand, dispossesssd
the owner and was proceeding summarily
to confscate. There is, therefore, no
conflict of jurisdiction between the Judi
cial tribunals of the State and the United
States. It is nota question of country,
but of duty. Having choice of juris-
diction, this libelant has sought his
remedy in the Court. The Court has no
option to grant or withhold relief in q
case clearly within its Jurisdiction. 1t is
adjudged that so much of the Act Of
January, 1895, under which this vessel
was seized, is void as an interference
with Interstate commerce and that libel
ant is entitled to decree for possession
and for his COSTS"
The State constabulary still have pos
session of the Carolina, and will doubtless
attempt to hold her. There is promise,
therefore, of conflict between the State
and Federal authorities.