The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-03-16
SEIZURE OF THE CAROLINE.
Judge crowley Decides That IL Was
Illegal.

Charleston, S. c., March 15.-The state
dispensary law received another black
eye in the United States court today
when District Judge Brawley handed
down decision in the libel case OF the
schooner Carolina The facts of the case
orleny are as follows: On Feb. Is last
the schooner Carolina, duly enrolled and
licensed for the coasting trade under the
United States laws, sailed from Savannah.
Ca, and crossed the. bar at Charleston
on Feb. Is. about O'Clock p. m. She
reached her wharf in this city about
9 O'Clock a, n. on Feb. IS. having on
board six packages marked whisky. and
twenty-six packages marked vinegar. but
which investigation proved TO contain
whisky.
While lying at the dock. and before
her cargo was unlcaded, she was seized
by the chief constable under section 80
OF the dispensary law. which provides
that any wagon. cart, boat or other con-
Veyance transporting liquor at night
other than regular passengers and freight
steamers and railway cars shall be liable
to seizure and condscation, and to that
end the officer shall cause the same to
be duly advertised and sold, and the pro-
ceeds sent to the state commissioner
Jervey. the captain and owner. and his
crew were arrested by the constabulary
and turned over TO the county officials.
Capt. Jervey applied for a writ of habeas
corpus to Circuit Judge Simonton of the
United States circuit court and was or
dered to be released by that court on
Tuesday last. In the meantime Can't.
Jervey, as the owner, applied for a libel
H.
tain possession Of his vessel, and 1t was
this case which Judge Brawley decided
to-day.
In his decision Judge Brawley says:
Here is a schooner duly enrolled as A
United States vessel, sailing from the
port of q neighboring state, over the high
sea, laden with an undischarged cargo,
her transit completed, but until dis
charged, still occupied In the business of
navigation, seized without a warrant or
other process Of law. 1t being clear that
the conduct complained of is Illegal. a
marine tort committed on a vessel of the
United States, lying in the waters of the
United States, this court cannot consis-
tently with its duty, refuse the jurisdic-
ton with which it is clothed by the con-
stitution and laws, when its aid is en-
voked by party entitled to demand it."
The order concludes as follows: IN this
case there was no process in the state
court, no warrant, the constable seized
with a strong hand, dispossessed the own
er and was proceeding summarily TO con
fiscate. There is, therefore. no conflict
of jurisdiction between the judicial tri-
bunals OF the state and the United States
1t Is not a question of courtesy, but OF
duty. Having choice of jurisdiction
this libellant has sought bis remedy II
this court. The court has no option to
grant or withhold relief in a case clearly
within It's jurisdiction. 1t is adjudged that
so much Of the act of January. 1885, under
which this vessel was seized. is void as ar
interference with interstate commerce
and that libellant is entitled to a decree
for possession and for his costs"
The state constabulary still have pos
session of the Carolina, and will doubtless
attempt to hold on. There is promise
therefore, Of a conflict between the state
and federal authorities.