The morning times., 1896-10-23
.D|sPENsARY LAW CASES
Il
Supreme Court Hears the
Argument Of Counsel.
BOND BETWEEN THE STATES
Attorney Bryan Defined 1t as Com
mercial as Well as POlitical-lnter-
estinS Colloquy with Justice Brown
on the Question of Da amages-Effect
of the Law on Temperance.

The arguments in the South Carolina dis
pensary cases i'll the United States Supreme
Court were concluded yesterday afternoon.
The case was started late Wednesday
afternoon, but the court suspended during
the argument of Mr. j. =. Kennedy Bryan,
attorney for appellee On the opening OF the
court yesterday Mr. Bryan resumed his
argument and wils followed by Attorney
General Barber, whose argument finished
the hearing.
lie cuurt gave no intimation as to when
decision would be rendered.
IL VIII be recalled that the case is brought
by The state on an appeal from United
states Circuit Judge SimOnton's opinion,
who decided that liquors for personal use
could be imported into the state.
CoLLoQUY WITH A JUSTICE.
Before Mr.. Bryan proceeded with the ar
guinent in support uf the Judgment Of the
circuit court Or the United States for South
Carolina, that tie constabies of the State
he restrained from sciZiug any liquors
Imported into tie State by complainant
Donald for his own use and consumption,
an interesting COlloquy occurred between
Mr. Justice Brown and Mr.. Bryan.
The justice, calling attention to the
declaration OF Donald that the seiZur" Of
The liquors in question had damaged him
in the sun of So 600, asked how that act
value OF the liquors seized did not exceed
500. Was not the declaration made, tie
Justice further inquired, in order that the
case might I've brought within the terms Of
the law OF lSSS, under which the iurisCiic-
tioIf-of the FEDERAL courts was claimed,
and which required that the amount in
VOWED exceed $4,000?
QUESTION OF DAMAGES.
Mr.. Bryan replied that the supreme Cent
has passed upon that point i'll the case Of
Barney VS. Edmunds l16th U. s, on ap-
peal from TIE circuit court for Virginia.
That was Il case involving S2l of taxes,
but the court held that the question OF
damages for the invasion Of conStitu-
tlunal right was peculiarly one for deIcrmi-
nation by the jury That was the point Ut
issue in this case. Mr. Bryan said, Mr..
Donald asserted that his rights had been
invaded by the states officials, after no
tice Of protest by him.
Mr.. Justice Brown saiI that while he was
un the circuit bench. he had always held
that there must be scme sort OF reasonable
proportion between the amount Of damages
claimed and that which had been sustained
If the view uf counsel were to be the rule,
lie said. it would only be necessary ~ al
iegc damages uf So .O0o Ia bring every case
within the law of 1898
Mr. Bryan. replying gtOarurther suggestion,
called The hecouTttothe agreed
statement of facts in the easel in which IL was
admitted by the attorney general ofthe State
that the right Of the complainant, Donald,
to import liquors which the dispeBsary law
invaded was of the value of 50 600. That,
he asserted. was sufficient to bring he case
within the terms of the law OF 1883.
BOND BETWEEN STATES.
In the course Of his argument upon the
power of a State to engage in the trade OF
any article respecting which il had the right
tn make police regulations. Mr.. Bryan de-
Clared that the real bond bet weenthc Statls
OF the Union was commercial as well as
political 1.-THE real bond is rather CONNER
cial Than the other"
In connection with the suggestion of At
torney General Barber that the court in dis
posing of the case, consider the amendment
TO the dispeusary law enacted this year Mr..
Bryan stated that in the case of Exporter
Snyder, decided in August last, Judge
SiInonton held that amendment to be con-
stitutional.
In his concluding argument in support
of the validity of the law, Attorney Gen
eral Barber asserted that the effects Of
the dispeusary Law was. in the first place,
not to deny the importation OF the prod
ucts of other states. for the figures show
that 80 per cent of all the liquors sold
by the dispeusary officials were imported
goods.
OBJECT OF THE LAW
The law was primarily Intended to
secure to the people of the State pure
liquors, aud secondarily, to reduce the
evils flowing from their use. As to its
efficacy in this latter regard, the Attorney
General quoted Gov. Tillman to the effect
That the Law had reduced the consumption
of liquor by 90 per cent. AMI the number of
crimes caused by the use OF liquor 81 per
cent.
The matter Of the actual operation of
the law in respect of the discrimination
against the liquors of all other States, in
case The State agents decided To purchase
their stock from one State alone, WAS the
subject of numerous questions by members
of the court. The attorney general found
some difficulty in meeting them all, but
maintained that the States officers Would
do their duty proparly. and that the liquors
Of all States would come into proper com
petition.
Mr.. Barber agreed with Mr.. Bryan that
the court should take into consideration
Judge Simontons decision in the Snyder
case, saying it was the desire of all the
States officials that the Supreme Court
of the United States should pass upon the
law in ail Its features. The court now has