The Union times. [volume] (Union, S.C.) 1894-1918, 1896-06-12

| U. S., Ga. But, be this as il may, an
inspection law must be fair, equal and
IN no why discriminating in favor
either OF persons or of property. Ibid.
1t cannot be used as a preventive to
the Importation of articles of the same
class with those which it either permits
or assists, nor to promote monopoly.
Foster vs. Master, etc, of New Or
leans, 94 U. s., 2IS. 1t is manifest
that this is not an inspection law in
this sense, but rather an effort under
the guise OF an inspection law to impose
burden on commerce. Aud when in
connection Herewith is taken .he pro-
Vision that oven with u certificate of
, such test tho sale is contraband un-
less made by State officer it is diff
cult to avoid the conclusion that both
of these conditions were made to ex-
clude all competition from abroad and
to secure in the State monopoly in
the sale of Intoxicating liquors, and
not to regulate their purchase and use
by her citizens. Is this n lawful exer-
else of the police power? Whether the
Act assumes to be au exercise of the
police power or not it Is the duty of
the Court to inquire with respect to
this Act not only whether there is u
real or substantial relation between ita
aYow.d objects and the means devised
for attaining those objects, but whether
by its necessary or natural operation
it impairs or destroys rights secured
by the Constitution of the United
States. Minnesota VS.. Barber, 1876 U.
s., $40. This Act excludes all compe-
tition in the trade of Intoxicating
liquors from abroad.
The State of Minnesota passed an
Act "for the protection of the public
health by providing for inspection be
fore slaughter of cattle, sheep and
swine designed for slaughter for hu-
man food The most ample provis-
ion was made for such an inspection
by the appointment OF inspectors in
every city, village, borough or town
ship, and the duties of these inspectors
were carefully prescribed. No sule
could fe made of slaughtered cattle
without u certificate from such inspcc-
tors, and the certificate WAS full and
minute. The Supreme Court Of the
United States held that the result of
the Statute, whatever may have been
its purpose, WAS to deny nlto Scther to
citizens of other States the privileges
of importing slaughtered cattle outside
OF the State, and that it thus fettered
commerce among the States and was
void. minnesota vs. Barber, 1876 U.
S., 323. The Court further held thnt
the constitutiona!ity of the Act was not
preserved because it applied alike tn
the people of al the States, including
the people of the State euactiHg the
statute.
The Act now in question secures in
the State board Of control a monopoly
in the import and sale of Intoxicating
liquors, however chemically pure they
may be.
The Constitution of the United
States secures to the citizens of every
one OF the United States privileges en-
joyed in every other State. They can
not be Disseminated against by State
Legislation. To them commerce be-
tween the States must be free. All
legislation, therefore, putting citizens
of other states at disadvantage in
any State because they are citizens of
other States, is void: "Any local reg
ulation which in terms or bv it's neces-
sary operation denies equality in the
markets of the State is when applied
to the people and products or indus
tries of other States direct burden
upon commerce among the States, aud
therefore void. Brimmin vs.. Rcbmap.
13S L. s., 50. Nor can it in principle
make any difference if this equality is
denied to citizens Of other States be-
cause the State herself through certain
agents engages i'll the comrcting busi-
ness and asserts her monopoly in it.
She may forbid the business nltogcth-
er or she may forbid her citizens from
carrying 1T on except on conditions
and restrictions however stringent.
No citizen OF another State can claim
greater privileges than her own
citizens. But when she herself
conducts the business through her
agents all over the State and takes tho
place of her citizens, she cannot by
thus coming into competition with citi-
zers of other States destroy their
competition by denying them the
right to trade in the same commodity
in every respect like that in which she
is trading, save that it is not protected
by certificate, which she alone can
give and which she distinctly with
holds.
The present Act gives to certain per-
sons, the board of control, the sole
power Of purchasing and importing in
to this Stntc an article recognized
everywhere rs an article of commerce..
The monopoly is vested in them by
provisions of such strinscnry, secured
by such extraordinary sanctions, that
every other person and all citizens of
other States are absolutely deprived of
competition with them. Thus the pro-