The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1897-01-19


of the court practically kills the law for
under the decision of the court persons
are entitled to go outside of the state and
purchase their liquor, which necessarily
reduces the revenues to the state con-
templated by the dspensary law.
From a business standpoint the state
cannot afford to continue the system, and,
therefore, l believe the law is dead The
returns to the state have not been as
great as expected, besides the political
crimes committed in the name of the
dispensary law, combined to render the
law generally obnoxious throughout the
state"
The Decision and Dissent in Brief.
Washington Jan. 1S.-The supreme court
of the United States to-day decided that
the famous dispensary law of South Car
olina, at least so far as 1t attempted TO
prevent a citizen of the state from inn
porting into the commonwealth liquor for
his own use, was in violation of the inter-
state commerce clause of the federal con-
sttution and therefore null and void.
The opinion of the court was prepared
by Mr.. Justice Shras, but in his absence,
owing to indisposition, it's conclusions
were announced by Chief Justice Fuller.
The cases at bar were begun in the fed
eral court for South Carolina by James
Donald, a citizen of that state, upon the
seizure of case OF California claret. six
bottles OF Maryland whisky, and a barrel
of Rochester. NJ Y, beer by r. Nj. Gard
ner, M T. Hollicks, E. c. Beach and j. M.
Scott, state constables, acting under the
provisions of the dispensary law directing
haka ~.
of any common carrier, agent or private
citizen, not sold by the state agent,
whether imported or otherwise. The trial
court gave Donald judgment for $500, In
each case, and the case was appealed
The cases were argued last fall, the Vali-
dity of the entire law being brought into
question.
The opinion of the court stated that
the proceedings was not against the state
(Which could not be brought without its
consenO and that the pleadngs of the rec
ord raised questions which gave the SUI
preme court of the United States juris-
diction of the whole subject. The Jaw
was discussed at great length in the opin-
ion and many authorities cited, the e.
suit being that the judgment of the court
below in favor of the owner of the llq
uors was affirmed, with costs, for the rea-
son that the law was in contravention
| of the clause of the national constitution
| regulating commerce between the states.
| The opinion conceded that the legislature
| Of the state passed the law in what 1t
| believed TO be the exercise of it's police
| power and with no intention to interfere
/ with the operation of any federal law or
/ to discriminate against the products OF
| any other state but that intention, II con-
! tinued, could not finally control the deter
mination of the effect of the law.
Mr.. Justice Brewer did not hear the arr
| gument, and took no part in the decision.
| MIR. Justice Brown recorded a vigorous
| dissent, saying: ''The effect of the enact
ment of the Wilson law seems to me to
withdraw Intoxicating liquors from the
| operation of the commerce clause of the
| constitution, and to permit the traffic IN
| them to be regulated i'm such manner as
| the several states, in the exercise
of their police powers, shall deem
best for the general interests Of
the public. The act is not
limited in its operation, as the majority
operation seems to assume, state laws for
bidding the Importation, manufacture and
sale of such liuqors; but declares that they
shat be subject upon their arrival within
the state, to the operation of all its laws
enacted in the exercise OF it's police powers.
Now, as congress has expressly declared
that such articles shall, upon their arrival
in the state, become subject to it's laws, to
the same extent as If they had been orig
inally produced there, and as the dispen-
sary act does not declare them contraband
as imported liquors, or because they were
imported, but because they were not
bought from a state officer authorized to
sell the same, and as the law makes no
discrimination in that particular between
imported and domestic liquors, it is impos-
sible for me, TO see why congress has not
directly authorized the action that was
taken by the state officers in Selling these
liquors. But as l understand, the court
bases, to a certain extent its opinion OF
the uneonstitutiOnality of this act upon the
fact that the traffic in intoxicating liquors
is not absolutely prohibited. but is
monopolized by the state itself
through the agency of state
commissioners. Granting that the act
gives the state itself a monopoly of all
the traffic In such liquors, 1t is not mo-
nopoly in the ordinary or odious sense
of the term, where one individual or cora
poration is given the right to manufac-
ture or trade which is not open to others,
but a monopoly for the benefit of the
whole people of the state the profits of
which, If any, are enjoyed by the whole
people; In short, monopoly in the same
sense in which the postOfce department
and the right to carry the mails is a mo-
nopoly of the federal government"
Quoting Chief Justices Marshall and
Waite upon the necessity and expediency
of the courts acting with great delicacy
and hesitation in declaring a statute un-
constitutional, Justice Brown concluded:
Il regard these words as particularly APP
plicable to the dealings by this court with
the proceedings OF a state legislature, and
that their right to determine what IS for
the best interests of their people should
be carefully respected, except where II
comes in manifest conflict with the domi-
nant law Especially should everything
be avoided which carries the suggestion
of a vexatious interference with state ac-
ton. The manifest dangers to the future
of the country. which lurk In the inflexi-
bility of the federal constitution, can only
be averted by carefully distinguishing be-
tween such laws as practically concern the
inhabitants Of particular state only, and
are intended bona fide for their welfare,
and such as are a mere subterfuge for an
unlawful discrimination, and cannot be
carried into effect without doing palpable
Injustice to citizens Of other states. IL
should not be overlooked in this conneo-
tion that the complaints In this case ema-
nate from citizen of South Carolina, who
seeks TO defy the law of his own state,
and puts forward as his excuse the injus-
tice done the citizens Of other states who
make no complaint Of her action In this