The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1895-05-15
CONSTABLES ENJ0INED.
NOT TO SEIZE LIQUOR BROUGHT IN
FOR PRIVATE USE.

fOh FRlYH OSG.
Decision of the United States Court in the
Gases Heard Last Week---an Injunction
Against All the State Constabulary.
COLUMBIA, S. c.. May S.-Special:
There was the usual crowd in the Fed
eral court room yesterday and today.
Unusual interest was taken in the ar
gument yesterday-being the speech
of Mr.. ]. P. X. Bryan of Charleston,
in support of the motion to enjoin the
officers and agents from
interfering with liquors brought into
this State. for private consumption.
There were other details in the case,
but this was the main question to
which the argument was directed. 4
case having the same object as Mr.
Bryan's was also brought by Messrs.
Pope and Caldwell. In these cases
Judges Goff and Simonton sat to-
gether.
On behalf of the State, Assistant
Attorney General Townsend read the
return Of the dispensary officers, set
ting up, in substance, that the dispen-
sary law is police regulation of the
State Of South Carolina, and that it
does not at all interfere with interstate
commerce. There were other points
made on this side also, but the state
ment Just given covers the ground.
The different lawyers spoke in the
following order: Mr.. Townsend, DR..
Pope, Mr.. Caldwell, Mr.. Bryan, Mr..
Barber. The positions taken by either
side are intelligibly stated in the opin-
ion of Judge Simonton, which was
delivered this morning. 1t is as fol
lows:
James Donald VS.. J. NJ. Scott, NJ. T.
Holley, Sr., ct al.
This is bill against the defendants,
State constables of the State of South
Carolina.
The bill states that complainant
who is 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 in the State OF
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 whis'
key, containing six quart bottles pur.
chased in Baltimore, in the State OF
Maryland, and shipped to him by
steamer and railroad to Charleston,
South Carolina, his residence, and
one case of domestic California claret,
containing one dozen quart bottles,
shipped to him from the place of pur'
chase, Savannah, in the State of Geor.
gia, to Charleston by rail. That these
packages contained liquors for his
own personal use and consumption,
and not for sale in any way. That
none of them contained any product
of the State Of South Carolina, but
their contents were products of other
States of the Union. That each pack
age was openly marked in his name.
That upon the arrival Of each of the
said packages at Charleston, its desti
nation, it was forcibly seized by the
defendants, claiming to act as State
constables, and taken and carried by
them by pretense of authority of the
act of the General Assembly Of South
Carolina, approved I'd January, 1895,
commonly known as the dispensary
law. That before the arrival of each
shipment the complainant had given
notice to the defendants of his inten,
ton to import the same for his own
personal use, from points without this
State, and that the defendants, when
they made their several seizures, had
knowledge of all the facts connected
with the importation, shipment and
proposed use of the packages. That
upon each seizure, and after demand
and refusal, he brought his action fos
the unlawful trespass on his rights by
the defendants, and that notwithstand,
ing this, they persist therein, and man,
ifestly propose to drive him to a mul-
tiplicity of suits. That he had no ad,
equate remedy at law, for these re.
peated violations of his rights, as de,
PENDANTS are notoriously insolTent,
and pecuniarily 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 importing, for his own use
and consumption, alcoholic liquors,
the products of other States, into this
State, violates the interstate commerce
law, as established by the Constitution
and laws of the United States, and is
null and void. His bill filed as well
in his own behalf, as in that of other
citizens of this State, in like plight
with himself, prays an injunction
against the defendants, forbidding
them to continue their unlawful
search and seizure of packages import
ed as these were.
Upon filing the bill rule was is,
sued requiring the defendants to ap'
pear and show cause why an injunc-
ton should not be issued as prayed
for in the bill.
The defendants have appeared, and
have filed their return.
After denying the jurisdiction Of the
court, because this suit is in fact one
against the State, and because it pre-
sents no question arising under the
Constitution and laws of the United
States, and because the allegations of
the bill show no ground of equity ju-
risdiction, they answer in detail the
allegations of the bill, excusing and
iustifying their conduct in the prem
ises under the provisions of the dispen-
sary law
The arguments at the hearing on
both sides have been able and exhaus-
tive. The time at the command of the
court forbids for the present any ex-
tended discussion, of the important
points raised and elaborately discuss
ed. This must be reserved for a fu-
ture occasion. Conclusions can only
at this time be given.
It is not suit against the State of
South Carolina, nor is she in any way
a Marty thereto Certain personS claim