The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1895-05-08

motion of Messrs. Caldwell and Pope,
attorneys for compliant, j. is
Ordered that Francis NJ Mixson.
Commissioner of the Dispensary, do
show cause before this court on Tues.
day, the 7th instant, 10 o'clock q. M,
why be should not be attached for
contempt in disobeying the orders OF
the said court heretofore granted.
NATHAN Corr,
Circuit Judge.
CHARLES 81. S1AoSroS,
Circuit Judge.
May 6, 1895.
Orders identical with this were
issued in the cases of the two consta-
bles.
Judge Golf then turned his atten-
ton to the cases in hand. 1t was de-
veloped that there were two cases in
the equity court-that of Dunbar
and that from Charleston of James
Donald. There were several other
cases from Charleston, coming up on
demurrers.
The Attorney General said that in
asmucd as they all involved the same
questions identical!y be was perfectly
willing to have all the cases heard to-
gether.
Mr.. Bryan said that he would be glad
of the same arrangements. but would
desire the procedure 10 the equity cases
to be kept separate so far as the rules
governing the arguments, etc. were
concerned. It was then agreed that
the hearing should proceed, ali the
cases being heard together. Judge
Golf announced that the court would
nut no limit Oh the time, but would be
glad to have the attorneys consum as
little time as possible.
Mr.. Bryan read the bill for %iojuOc-
ton in his case in equity aud Attorney
General Barber read the States an
swer. Judge Townsend. assistant At
torney general made the opening argu-
ment for the State. He argued that
the ~dispeusary law was within the po-
lice power Of the State. that the cases
brought before the court were suits
against the State and therefore uncou-
stitutioual and that 1.-The court did not
have jurisdiction.
Dr. Pope replied, speaking two hours.
His argument was mainly to prove that
the law was unconstitutional and sub
~versive of the Republican form of gov
eminent. He quoted numerous author
tiles in support of the contention that
the court had jurisdiction and that the
system was not a police measure, but a
monopoly for profit. In support of his
proposition that the las is uucopstitu-
tional he said:
The act ofI894 known as the dispeu-
sary act, which is the act in question, is
contrary to the provisions of toe con-
~stitution Of the United States.
First Because the State has DO right
to engage iu any business to the exclu-
sion of its own citizens.
Second. By SO doing it creates a mon
opoly 10 an article Of commerce which
it has no right to do--MoDopo!y case II
Coke's Reports-contrary to common
law aud puollc policy. Dissenting
o,;n;on of .Judoe Field in SLAUGHTER
House cases. Monopolies have been
declared both in England and America
to be contrary to the common law,
Statute 81, Jones the first. and TO pub
lie policy.
Third. It is not a police measure.
but is a measure of revenue. and it
therefore, cannot be said to be a police
measure. 1t has carried liquor Into
counties AID towns heretofore dry aud
is calculated to corrupt the morals 10
stead of improving them, mixed drinks
such as cocktails. to tempt the appetite
Of the uusophiscated and temperate
Fourth. Because it denie to the citi-
zen the privilege or ordering liquor
aud forces him to buy from the dispen-
saries 80 per cent goods and cheap Ii
quors, calculated to iujure the health Of
the citizen.
Fifth. Because it interferes with the
commerce between the States, 10 the
greed to make money out of the bust
ness.
Sixth. Because it co06scates the
property Of the citizen without just
remuneration therefor, or without due
process of law.
Seventh. Because it authorizes
searches and seizures to be made with
out warrant Of Law.
Eighth. Because it gives a preference
to a few, at the expense of the many
by licensing tourists hotels and the
Charleston Brewing Company, when