The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1895-05-15
The Dispensary Killed.
Judge simonton Renders a
Decision That Strikes the
State Monopoly in the
Vitals.
In Conflict With the Inter State
Commerce Law.
Liquor .May be Ordered IN Any
Quantity.

Liquor -uQY Oe O1Ue'eW =" ~A"S
Quantity.
The dispensary law has been struck
10 its weakest point. and the blow deals
it by Judge Simonton will undoubtedly
carse the Law to be entirely remodeled
or abandoned. Fsor, the first it has
been claimed that the law was in con-
aict With the interstate commerce law
and that it would not be able to stand
the test if brought before the courts,
This opinion has been sustained. A
citizen of South Carolina can no longer
be debarred from ordering liquor FROM
other States for bis own use. at ooe
blow the tyrannical and oppressive con-
stabulary system of search aud siezure
has been struck down, and the right Of
drinking what one plesses and buying
it from whom one wills is restored to
the people.
Judge Simonton's decision was as
fellows:
James Donald VS.. J. NJ. Scott, NJ. T..
Holley, ST., ct al.
This is bill against the defendants.
State constables of the State Of South
Carolina.
The bill states that complainant who
is a citizen of the United States, and Of
the State of South Carolina, was the
owner of certain packages Of alcoholic
liquor, to wit /: One barrel of Rochester
Beer, made iu the State New York,
and shipped to him by ocean and land
routes to the city Of Charleston, his
place Of residence. One package of
Pickwick Club Whiskey, containg six
quart bottles purchased in Baltimore,
in the State Of Maryland, and shipped
to him by steamer and railroad to Char.
lestou, South Carolina. his residence,
and one case of domestic California
claret, containing one dozen quart
bottles. shipped to him from the place
Of purchase, Savannah in the State of
Georgia, to Charleston by rail. That
these packages contained liquors for his
own personal use aud consumption, and
rot for sale in any way. That none
Of them contained any product Of the
State of South Carolina, but their con-
tents were products of other States Of
the Union. That each package was
openly marked in his name. That
upon the arrival of each of the said
packages at Charleston, its destination,
it was forcibly seized by the defendants,
claiming to act as State cocstables, and
taken and carried by them BY pre'ense
of authority of the act of the General
Assembly of South Carolina, approved
ID January. 1895, commonly known
as the dispensary law. That before the
arrival of each shipment the complain
ant had given notice to the defendants
of his intention to import the same for
bis Own personal use from points with
out this State. and that the defendants.
when they made their several seizures,
had knowledge of all the facts connect
ed With the Importation, shipment and
proposed use Of the packages. That
upon each seizur- aud after demand
and refusal, he brought his action for
the unlawful trespass on bis rights BY
the defendants, and that ootwithstaud-
ing this, they persist therein. and man
ifestly propose to drive him to multi
plicity of suits. That he bad no ade-
quate remedy at law, for these repeated
violations OF his rights, as defendants
are uotoriously iusolveDt. and pecuniA-
rily irresponsible He AYERS that so
much of the dispensary law as is set up
in justification of these acts Of the
defendants, in preventing him from i'm
porting, for his own use aud cousump-
tion, alcoholic liquors, the products Of
other States. into this State, violates
the interstate commerce law, as estab-
lisbed by the Constitution and laws of
the United States, and is null and void.
His bill filed as we'll ia his own behalf,
as in that of other citizens Of this State
in like plight with himself, prays ao in-
junction against the defendants, forbid
ding them TO continue their unlawful
search and seizure of packages import
ed as these we're
Upon fling the bill a rule was issued
requiring the defendants to appear and
show cause why an injunction should
not be issued as prayed for 10 the bill.
The defendants have appeared. aud
have fled their return.
After denying the Jurisdiction Of the
court, because this suit is in fact one
against the State, aud because it pre-
seD,s 20 question arising under the
Constitution and laws of the United
C...o, md haoaree tho allepatiOns of