Birmingham state herald., 1897-06-01
South Carolina DiSpensary Law .a Is Unconstitutional.
so SAYS JUDGE SlMONT TON
1t Ifterferes With the Interstate Commerce law The State Cannot Monopoize
 the Traffic of Liquor0eaing.

g ates circuit court this morning Judge Simcnton handed down his decision in what is widely known as the Wander cook case, a. case which involved the val idity of many provisoints of the South Carolina dispensary law. The decision created a sensation when it was learned that the court had declared certain pro- visions of he law in conflict with the in- terJ.ate conemrce legulals.ons of con- gress and that consequently it would re- suit in the total downfall of the South Carolina monopoly of the whisky busi- ness wJthan her borders
 In syllabus pfetixed to the full text of the decision Judge SimonSon says:
 Any etaIte may, in the exercise of the police power, declare that the manufac- Lure. sale, banter and exchange of the use as beverage of alcoholic liquors are public evils, and having thus declared can forbid such manufacture, sale, bar ter and excha Ege CT use within her ter rAory.
 But when a state recognizes and ap- proves the manufacture, sale, barter and exchange and the use as a beverage, of alcoholic liquors and the s.a.e itself en- courageJ the manufacture, engages in the sale or and proVid-S for the consumption of alcoholic liquors as a beverage, and so
 
 ture, sale, barter, exchange or use are in- furious to the public welfare, 1t is not atl3wful exercise of the police power. to forbid the Importation of such liquors or their sale in original packages for per Sonal use and consumption.
 l"Such prohibition under such circum- stances Is in conflict with the laws of interstate and foreign commerce
 t"The dispensary act of 1896. as amend ed by the act of 1897, inasmuch as they ft,f. of alcoholic liquors for the state and pro- vide for the sale of such alcoholic liquors as a beverage in aid of the finances of the state in so far as they forbid the importation of alcoholic liquors in orig inal packages for such use in Ahis state, are in conflict with the laws of interstate and foreign comemrce and ther5f fore, to that extent void"
 The court then goes into lengthy de- cision of the facts and the law of the case Judge Simonton's summary of the fac.s before him is as follows: 4,s 'e"This is a bill in equity filed by conn plainant, a corporation of the state of California, against s. w. Vance, who is state commissioner under the dispen- sary law, and W. N. Bahr and others, who are state constables appointed to put this law in execution. The bill al- leges that the complainant is the owner of vineyards in the state of California and that it manufactures from grapes of such vineyards, well known pure wines, brandies and other liquors, par ticularly clarets, Rhine wine, Burgundies and champagne. That by it's travelling agent the complainant took arderS from certain citizens and residents of the state of South Carolina to deliver to each of them certain original packages of wines, etc, products of it's vineyards, filled said orders and shipped from San Francisco dns California to Charleston, s. G. by rail a car load of it's products, containing 'Seventy-three separate original packages for each of it's said customers, all marked with it's name and address in California, adopting this mode of shipping by car load in order to obtain large reduction in freight. That the goods so shipped arrived in continuous route and there upon were seized without warrant by de7 Hfendants, Bahr and Scott, and sixty of the packages were shipped by said con1 <. stables to Columbia to John F. Gaston bthen the state commissioner going into ohis hands and then into the hands of his 2 successor, w. s. Vance, with full notice e,of the unlawful seizure and that Vance, 6 notwithstanding, refused to deliver them to complainant or it's agent, after re- h peated demands and threatens to convert and sell the same to citizens of South Carolina. That these same constables and others, claiming like authority threaten to seize in like manner all wines D shipped by complainant into this state wherever found and for whatever pur- poses shipped, arriving in said city of Charleston in like manner to ship and deliver the same to the said s. w. Vance, who likewise threatens to convert the same to the great damage of complainant and to the obstruction and destruction y of the lawful business of interstate com meree trade in its wines, etc., with cit izens and residents of South Carolina.
 "The bill further alleges the arrival ;. of the same in South Carolina and the wrongful seizure of the same by state constab bles. That other orders have been obeyed for other citizens of South Car olina for separate and original packages ! and upon such orders complainant pur- 8 poses to ship other packages to South d, Carolina in due course of interstate com :, merce law and at the same time 1t seeks 10 place similar orders and ship similar T original packages into the state of South Carolina.
 e"The bill also alleges that it intends, < in the course of it's business further and in addition to such. shipments ordered by customers in advance, to ship also from San Francisco, Cal, to it's agent in the state cf South Carolina and to store and warehouse in South Carolina ard to sell in the state of South Caro9 lima in the original, unbroken packages imported, as aforesaid to residents in South Carolina, it's wines and liquors, products of it's vineyards, in the due ana lawful execution of it's rights under the ~, constitution and laws of the United ! States. The defendant threatens to seize, carry away. convert and sell all such shipments <,
 ''The bill then charges that under the dispensary act of 1897, under which the authorities seek to justify their action, all wines, liquors, ales, beers and other , 'fiitoxicating liquors are the subjects of lawful manufacture, barter, sale, export and import in ,the state of South Caro- lima. have been and are being used and sWfu continue to be lawfully used as a tbaverage by citizens and residents of staA state of South Carolina. And that the products of it's vineyards are lawful subjejcts of interstate and foreign trade and commerce A }pThe bill then charges that the said - dispensary law in SD far as f authorizes the acts of the defendants or In any oth- CT way attempts to abridge ihe rights of importation of the products of complain , aIli's vineyards into this state and there to seal in original packages or in any