The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-06-06

nDunCbu uuTluk thb "tbh hhh v LAiob VI ~ uAho
Charles H.. simonton Of the Circuit Court Of tho
United States In the Fourth Circuit, in reference
TO the South Carolina Dispensary law. This
statute does not prohibit the sale of liquor In
the State, but recognizes the liquor traffic az
legitimate and proper, and simply attempts 10
restrict the business TO the establishment known
as the State Disponsary and to some eighty sub
ordinate dispensarics, maintained under tho
sanction Of the State Government itself. Judge
Simonton holds that the State cannot thus en-
gage In tho liquor traffic and Mt the same timo
forbid the importation OF liquor in the original
packages from other parts OF the Union, or Its
sale in such packages for personal use and con
sumption. Such a prohibition IL declared to be
an interference with interstate which
the Federal Constitution will not permit. Tho
decision practically n~ulliies the South Carolina
Dispensary law. and destroys the monopoly In
the liquor business which the State sought to
SGT up for itself.
In Texas. as we'll as in South Carolina, an In
t~eresting question Of constitutional law con-
corning the liquor traffic has Just been de-
cided. The Constitution Of Texas provides
for a popular vote In particular localities to
determine from time to timo whether the
sale of intoxicating liquors shall be prohibited
within the county, town. or city limits. The
Legislature passed q local option law, under
which such vote could be taken, but this act
declared that n vote in favor of prohibition
should not no construed to prohibit the sale of
wines for sacramental purposes nor alcoholic
stimulants as medicines. The validity Of tho
statute was attacked on account OF this DECLARE
tion. but the Court OF Criminal Appeals has held
hat this part of the act does not affect Its prin.
cipal provisions, which direct the submission to
the people of tho precise question prescribed In
the Constitution. The court timated that
there had mover been any evil In the sale OF In.
toxiCants for medicinal uses or of wine for
purposes, and that the general Ian.
guage used in tho Constitution could hardly DO
deemed to apply to the disposition OF liquor or
vino under such circumstances.
The announcement comes from Albany that
the Statutory Revision Commissioners are about
to undertake to revise the Code OF Civil Pro-
cedure on an entirely new plan. This scheme
c~ontemplates a division Of the existing code into
four separate and distinct statutes to be known
respectively as the Judiciary law, the Descend
ants Estate law, the Justices Court law, and
the Code OF Civil Procedure. In other words.
a good deal OF matter will be taken out of the
Code OF Civil Procedure that never ought to
have been put there at all; for such a code
should contain only those provisions of law
which relate to the conduct OF suits and other
proceedings in the courts. The separation of
these regulations from the mass of substantive
law that has been incorporated into the Code Of
Civil Procedure in the past twenty years would
be an improvements; but we fear that the elabo-
rate scheme devised by the Statutory Revision
Commissioner will only result in greater COM
plication and confusion in our statutes than al
ready exist. The courts will have quite a task
for some time to come to deal with the questions
presented by the Greater New York Charter. A
new Code of Civil Procedure would add a great
burden to their labors and those Of the bar.
The assumption that the morphine habit may
be an inducing cause of kleptomanIa evidently
induced the Middlesex County Sessions to deal
indulgently with Jane Green, "a lady OF good
position" who was recently charged before that
tribunal with the larceny OF "a box OF Turkish
delight" The defendant pleaded guilty. but
her counsel assured the bench that she was in
no want of money, but had sufficient means 10
enable her to live comfortably. and asked that
she be treated l~eniently on the ground that the
theft was due to the effects OF the excessive use
of morphine. 1t appeared that she had con
sumed as much as ninety-six grains OF morphine
in q single week. The magistrate suspended
Judgment, upon the defendant giving security
In $50 to appear for sentence when required
The quantity of morphine taken by this lady
was very large. but not equal to the cnormou:
NoFSS teAAN ~ hSANAHA - ~ ~
Quincey's daily consumption of laudanum wa:
equivalent to 57le grains OF morphine, and there
ia a case on record whore 40 grains were takcr
at once without producing death.
Tho tcchnicality Of the criminal law of Texa.
is proverbial, and Is uptly illustrated by a recent
decision OF the highest criminal court in thai
State. The defendant was prosecuted for shoot
ing into a church. The complaint upon which
he was arrested charged him with shooting int
St. Paul's Methodist Church. The information
Tor formal accusation corresponding to an in
dictment, upon which he was brought to trial
charged hin with shooting into st. Paul
Church. The Court held that these were twr
distinct names. and might be entirely differen
places, and that the information ought to hav,
been Quashed ON account Of the variance.
A stay OF proceedings. OF indefinite duration
appears to have been obtained in tho case o
Theodore Durrant, who Is under sentence o
death for the murder OF Blanche Lamont in tn
bell tower of u church in San Francisco in April
1898. Since his conviction was affirmed by tn
Supreme Court OF California, repeated effort
have been made in his behalf to procure n re
view Of the case in the courts OF the Unite'
States on the ground that various Federal Ques
tons were involved. These have at last been s
successful that Circuit Judge william Il. Gilber
OF Portland. Or. has granted Durrant's counse
leave to appeal to the Supreme Court at Wash
ington from an order Of the Federal Court u
San Francisco denying an application for u wri
OF habeas corpus. Pending this appeal proceed
ings for the execution OF the prisoner are staycG
and tho appeal cannot 10 heard until the ST
prcme Court OF the United States meets in o.
tober. Chief Justice Beatty OF the State 81
prcme Court some weeks ago refused TO grant
writ OF error to take the case to the Unite
States Supreme Court, saying: 1T does not al
pear that any right secured to the petitioner b
the Constitution or laws Of the United STATE
i has been denied or violated and no such que
, ton has been presented by the record" lie wa
thus evidently OF the opinion that there MAS n
Federal question TO review, although he di
scented, when the case was in his own cour
: from the action OF the majority in affirming IL
Judgment against Durrant.