The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1896-10-28
The Dispensary Law.
The Case Argued Before the
United States Supreme
Court.

WAsH1SeroN. Oct. 31.-Somewhat
unexpectedly to the officers OF the
court and to the attorneys engaged,
the argument upon what are known
as the South Carolina dispensary law
cases was begun in the Supreme
court of the United States to day.
In the enforcement Of the law the
State officials came into conflict with
the federal officers, which resulted in
bringing the law to the attention OF
the supreme court upon some coilat-
eral questions. but the cases at tue
bar. the validity of the law. as tar as
Il relates to the seizure of liquors
imported into the State by private
citizens for their own consumption,
is at stake. Liquors SO imported has
been seized by the constables ap
poia.ed to enforce the dispensary
law. and James Donald. citizen,
brought suit against four of the con
stables for injunction to restrain them
from seizing in the future any ales.
wines or liquors imported into the
Nate by him for his personal use and
consumption. The case was Tiled IN
the United States court, and after a
hearing the court granted the injunc-
ton asked for
From that decree the constables
appealed to the supreme court OF the
United States Attorney General
WA Barber appealed on behalf of
the constables in support OF the law.
In connection with the papers in the
case. he submitted to the court
suggestion that an act passed March
6 last by the Legislature of South
Carolina supercedes and repeals part
of the original dispensary law, and
he moved ..that the said act be con-
sidered by the court in the determl-
nation of the appeal in this case"
Mr.. j. P K Bryan appeared tor
Donald. The court adjourned before
he had concluded his argument.
Mr.. Barber contended that the suit
instituted by Donald was, IN effect, q,
suit against the State that the fed
eral court had no jurisdiction of the
case, presenting no question arising
under the laws or Constitution Of the
United States, and that the law. in
sofar as it prohibits persons from i'm
porting alcoholic liquors in the State
for personal use and consumption, IS
in the lawful exercise of the police
power of the State, and is not in con,
fict with the Constitution and inter.
state commerce laws of the United
States.
Replying to tho argument Of Al
torney General Barber, Mr.. j P. &.
BRYAN, counsel for Donald, contend.
ed that so much of the dispensary
law as forbids a citizen Of South
Carolina to purchase in other States.
and to import into that State. aIco-
-tholic liquors for his own use and con,
sumption. the products OF other
States, discriminates against the pro-
ducts and citizens of other States.
and also against the citizens OF that
State, and is to that extent null aad
void, being in violation of the Con
stitu,ion and the inter. state com
merce laws lie denied that the law
was in any sense an inspection law,
and therefore legitimate exercise OF
the police power He spoke of the
magnitude aud far reaching conse.
quence of the principles here at
stake A new political theory was
involved, as stated by Governor Till
man in his message of 1898. in which
he summarized these words alt is
not difficult 40 locate the school OF
political thought that announces as
new principle IN our form of govern.
ment that the State should supply
what the people want "
Elf the State could supply what
the people wan. in the l;qucr trade. :"
said Mr Bryan. cit could in every
trade in which the exercise of police
power in the State could make regu'
iatious and thas practically the whole
business trade and commerce of the
State could be constitutionally turn
ed into sys,emsof official conduct OF
business with an army of officers and
State agents; and .hus instead of the
individual citizen conducting trade
with private enterprise, under the
protection and restraints and regula
tions of the government, the State
would be conducting trade with pub7
lie funds through official employees.
To state this result is to demonstrate
the falsity of the principle, for this
result is simply socialism and pater-
palism aud communism, and destroys
the very purposes and trans.
crosses all the bounds of civil