The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1896-10-27
THE SOUTH CAROLINA SPENSARY CASES
ARGUED IN u. s.sUPREME COURT.

The Matter is Taken up Rather
Suddenly-The Validity of the Law
Will be Tested This Time.
somewhat Unexpectedly to the Of
hcers OF the court and to the ATTORNEYS
engaged, The argument upon what are
known as the South Carolina D.spen-
sary iaw cases vas begun in the SUI
pfeme Court of the United States last
week. In the enforcement OF the law
bhe state ofnciais came into conflict
WIN feoera ohicers, which resulted
Al tbe law 20 the attention OF
the supreme Court upon some col
lateral questions. but the cases nj, bar.
the validity Of the law, as far as II re,
lates to the seizure of LIQUORS imnorted
into the State by the private citizens
Tor their own consumption, ia at stake.
Liquors so imported had been seize6
\by the constables appointed to enforce
II dlspensary law, and james Donald,
N citizen, brought suit against four OF
we constables Tor an Injunction to re-
Sraln them from selling in tho future,
py ales, wines, or liquors imported
ITO the State himself fOs his personal
uS and consumption. The case was
hfd in the United State Circuit Court
aSd after II hearing, the court granted
CEf Injunction asked for. From that
daree. the constab'es appealed to the
!ir' mo g. " Ct the United States.
AIRrney General ". y. barber ap-
peaed on behalf of the coI4tables in
supPrt Of the law. In connection with
the Rpers in the case he submitted to
ene Surt a suggestion tina; an act
passsq March q, last, by the Legisla-
ure q South Carolina supeisedes aud
TepealSpart OF the original G~.spensary
law anShe moved that the said act
pc CONSIDERED by the court ia tue de-
'ermiha\on oithe appeal in this CASE
W.T. JAP. K. Bryan appeared for
Doneid. Vhe court adjourned before
he had Concluded his argument.
Mr.. Barrier contended hat the suit
instituted BY Donald was in effect a
SUIT against the State that the Fed
eral court had no jurisdiction of the
case presenting no question arising
unoef the laws or constitution of the
onlteo States, and that the law in &C
lar as IL prohibits persons from i'm,
portlhg alcoholic liquor into the State
ior personal use and consumption, is
IN inc lawful exercise of the police
power OF the State and is not in conflict
wlIh the Constitution and Interstate
laws of the United States.
Tepjylng to the argument of AT
torncy General Barber, Mr., j. p. K
bryan, counsel for Donald, commended
mat SO much OF the %dispensary law a.
lorDlds q citizen of South Carolina tt
purcnase IN other States and to import
lnto mat State alcoholic liquors for hi.
own use and consumption, the products
oi oCher states, discriminates agains'
Goe products and citizens Of Other
Htates, anu also against the citizens o
that state n is to that extent null ant
Voin, being In violation of the Coustitu
ZION, ana the Interstate commerce,
law. he denied hat the law was il
any sense an Inspection law, and there
lore legitimate exercise Of the publ,
power. tie spoke of tho magnitude,
apu lar'reaching consequences OF TIL,
principles here at stake. a new poll
tical theory was involved as stated b,
Governor Gilman IN nls message O
1893, "''ch he summarized in thcs,
words
cit Is not difficult to locate tn,
nn,Snol OF political thought that an
nounoNs as q new principle in our form
y, s~overhment that the State should
supply what the people want"
IL Inc State couid supply what fin,
peoPIe want" in the liquor trade, sait
VT: bryan, 1T could in every trade /,
wnlch IN the exercise Of the pole,
power In the State could make roo
u'aeions and thus practically tn,
Wnole business, trade and commerc,
- me State could be copstitutionoIiv
oGrlca INTO " system OF official condu,:,
Duslness, with an army OF. a.ad n1
the in .n,G agen t and ,tHhaTGfcting trade
with private ca o': vi and private enter
Misses upI~, Che protection and re-
sNaints and regulations Of the Govern
fne,t, the State would be conducting
traoS with public funds through official
cmpItyes. To state this result is to
demonstrate the falsity of the princi-
PIE, Tor this result is simply socialism
and patcrnaism and communism and
destroys the iery purposes and trans
crosses all TIE hnnterv of- t,
msnt" II and as eontempiat adgi no.
S%aSf6undcrs of these American non ny
monwealths. 49,
Argument in the South Carolina dis.
pcnsary law cases %es concluded in
the Supreme Court ii Tia Uni.nG
States on Thursday. CGusideration ~
the cases was resumed mmcdintoIMu
after the disposition OF I've ordinary
routine Of motions, etc. before NJ
Bryan began with the ar~;thopnt IN
support Of the judgment of thcyircnit
Court of the United States forIsnth
Carolina, that the constables ofSshn
State be restrained from seizing av
liquors imported into the State 3
Complainant Donald for his own usd
and consumption, ar interesting col
loquy occurred between Mr.. Justice
Brown and Mr.. Bryan. The Justice
calling attention to the declaration OF
Donald, that the seizure of the liquors
in question had damaged him in the
sum of $4,000, asked how that act could
damage him in that sum, when the
value OF the liquors seized did not ex-
coed Sl0C? Was not the declaration
made, the Justice further inquired, in
order that the case might be brought
within the terms OF the law of 1888.