The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1896-10-23
CARoLINA'S DISPENSARY CASE
MIR. BRYAN IN A COULOQUY WITH
JUSTICE BROWN.

The Justice Questions Whether the
Amount Involved in the Suit Is
Sufficient to warrant Bringing 1t
Into the Federal Supreme Court.
Attorney General Barber Makes
His Concluding Argument in Sup
port OF the Law-The Case Now
with the Judges.
Washington, Oct. 22.-Argument in the
South Carolina dispensary law cases was
concluded in the supreme court of tho
United States to-day. Consideration OF
the cases was resumed Immediately after
the disposition of the ordinary routine of
motions, etc Before Mr.. Bryan proceeded
with the argument in support of the judg-
ment of the circuit court of the United
States for South Carolina, that the con-
stables of the state be restrained from
Selling any liquors imported into the state
by the complainant Mr.. Donald, for his
own use and consumption, an interesting
colloquy occurred between Mr.. Justice
Brown and Mr.. Bryan. The justice, call
ing attention to the declaration of Dom
aid that the seizure of the liquors in
iNNN'NANhi
$1,000, asked how that act could damage
him in that sum. when the value of the
liquors seized did not exceed. 500. Was
not the declaration made, the justice fur
Their inquired, in order that the case
might be brought within the terms of
the law of 1888. under which the jurisdic.
ton of the federal courts was claimed.
and which required that the amount m
VolVed exceed 81 900?
Mr.. Bryan replied that the supreme
court has passed upon that point In the
case of Barney VS. Edmunds in 10th
United States, on appeal from the circuI,
court for Virginia. That was a case III.
volving but S21 for taxes, but the court
held that the question of damages for the
invasion of a constitutional right was
peculiarly one for determination by the
jury That was the point at issue in this
case, Mr. Bryan said. Mr.. Donald as
serted that his rights had been invaded
by the states officials, after notice of pro-
test by him.
Mr.. Justice Brown said that while he
was on the circuit bench he had always
held that there must be some sort of rea-
sonable proportion between the amount
of damages claimed and that which had
been sustained. If the view of counsel
were to be the rule he said, 1t would
only be necessary to allege damages in
the sum of $1,000 to bring every tort within
the law of 1885
Mr.. Bryan, replying to a further sug-
gestion, called the attention of the court
TO the agreed statement of facts in the
case IN Which IT was admitted by the at d..
torney general of the state that the right
of the complainant Mr. Donald. to i'm
port liquors which the dispensary law in
vaded, was of the value of 81. 600 That
he asserted, was sufficient to bring the
case within the terms of the law of 1888
In the course of his argument upon the
power of a state to engage in the trade
of any article respecting which it had
the right to make police regulations, Mr.
Bryan declared that the real bond be-
tween the states of the union was COM
mercial as well as political-"the real
bond is rather commercial than the 9TH
err" In connection with the suggestion of
Attorney General Barber, that the court
in disposng of the case consider the
amendment to the dispensary law enact
ed this year, Mr.. Bryan stated that in the
case of Snyder. decided in August last
Judge Simonton held that amendment to
be unconstitutional.
In his concluding argument in support
of the validity of the law, Attorney Cen
eral Barber asserted that the effect of
the dispensary law was, in the first place
not to deny the importation of the pro
ducts of other states, for the figures show
tnat W per cent. or all the liquors sold
by the dispensary officials were imported
goods. The law was primarily intended
to secure to the people of the state pure
liquors, and, secondarily, to reduce the
evils flowing from their use. AS 10 its
efficacy in this latter regard, the attor-
ney general quoted Gov. Tillman to the
effect that the law had reduced the con-
| sumption of liquor by so per cent. and
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 many
| questions by the members of the court
Attorney General Barber was at a loss
! to definitely answer them all, but main
| tained that the state officers would do
| their duty properly and that the liquors
| OF all states would come into prop
| er competition. Mr.. Barber agreed with
| Mr.. Bryan, that the court should take
| into consideration Judge Simonton's de-
| cision in the Snyder case, saying 1t was
the desire of all parties that the courts
should pass upon the law i'm all its feat
| ures The court now has the case.