San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1896-10-30
TILLMAN'S WHISKY LAW
BEING HEARD BEFORE THE ST.
PREME COURT.
Attorneys Effective Argument Against
Socialism and Paternalism Involved
In the Dispensary Law.

VI hit uhtADNNAGhlg w NAAN bAANNls VI
the court and to the attorney engag-
ed, the argument upon what are
known as the South Carolina diSpen-
sary law cases was begun in the Su-
preme court of the United States here
last Thursday. In the enforcement
of the law the state officials came in
conflict with Federal officers which
resulted in bringing the law TO the at
tention of the Supreme court upon
some collateral questions but the cases
at bar, the validity of the law as for
as it relates to the seizure of liquors
imported into the state by private cit
liens for their own consumption, is
at stake. Liquors so imported had
been seized by the constables appoin-
ted to enforce the dispensary law, and
James Mcdonald, a citizen, brought
suit against four of the constables for
an injunction restraining them in fu
ture from Selling any ales, wines or
liquors imported into the state him
self for his personal use and consump-
ton. The case was filed in the Uni
ted States Circuit court and after a
hearing, the Court granted the injunc-
ton asked for. From the decree the
constables appealed to the Supreme
court of the United States. Attorney
General W. a. Barber appealed on be-
half of the constableS in support of
the law. In connection with the papers
in the case, he submitted to the court
a suggestion that an act passed March
last, by the legislature of South Car
DINA, supercedes and repeats part of
the original dispenSary law and he
moved that the said act be consid
cred by the court in the determination
of an appeal in the case.
Mr. ]. p. X. Bryan appeared for
Donald. The court adjourned before
he had concluded his argument.
Mr.. BORDER contended that the suit
instituted by Donald was ineffect
suit against the state; that the Fed
eral court had no jurisdiction in the
case, presenting no question arising
under the laws or constitution Of the
United States, and that the law in so
far as it prohibits persons from i'm
porting alcoholic liquors into the state
for personal use and consumption is
in the lawful exercise of the police
FORCE of the state and is not in con-
fiict with the constitution and inter-
state commerce laws of the United
States.
Replying to the argument of Attorn-
ey Gen. Barber, Mr.. J. p. X. Bryan,
counsel for Donald, contended that so
much of the dispensary law as for
bids a citizen of South Carolina to
purchase in other states and to import
into the state alcoholic liquors for his
own use and consumption, the pro-
ducts of other states, discriminates
against the products and citizens OF
other states, and also against the cit
liens of that state, and is to that eX-
tent null and void. being in violation
of the constitution and the interstate
commerce law. He denied that the
law was in any sense an inspection
law, and therefore was not a le-
Ultimate exercise of the police power.
He spoke of the magnitude and far
reaching consequences of the prlncl-
pies here at stake. A new political
theory was involved as stated by Gov.
TiIlman, in his message of 1893, which
he summarized in these words: 1T is
not difficult to locate the school of pol
itical thought that announces as
new principle in our form of govern
ment is what the people want.
If the state could supply what the
y eople want in the liquor trade, said
Mr.. Bryan, at could in every trade in
which the exercise of police in the
state could make regulations,and thus
practically the whole business, trade
and commerce of the state could be
constitutiOnally turned into a sys-
TEN of official conduct of business,
with an army of officers and state a.
gents: and thus instead of the individ-
uaI citizen conducting the trade with
private capital and private enterprise
under the protection and restraints
and regulations of the government,
the state would be conducting trade
with public funds through Official en-
ployes. To state this result - de-
monstrate the falsity of the principle
for this result is simply socialism and
paternalism and communism and des-
troys the very purposes and trans
crosses all the bonds Of civil govern
ment in the history of the Anglo-Sax-
on race, and as contemplated by the
founders of these American common
wealthS."