Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-01-20
THE RICHMOND DISPATCH WEDNESDAY, JANUARY TO- 1897.


whose avowed purpose Is 10 restrict or
prevent the mischief. SO long. however.
as state legislation continues TO recognize
wines, beer and sprituous liquors or ar
ucleS OF lawful con sumption and com
merce. so long must II continue the duty
OF the Federal courts TO afford 10 such
use ana commerce the same measure OF
protecuon' under the Constitution and
laws OF the United States, az is given to
other articles.
1t Is important TO observe that the
statute before us does not purport to
prohiDit either the importation. the manu-
iactufe, the sale or the use OF intoxi-
eating liquors. Those operations
are turned oscr TO State func,onaries.
by whom alone. or under whose direction,
they are 10 be carried on"
Discussing the allegation that the law
was an inspection law, Justice Shiras re-
viewed the decisions OF the court upon
state inspection statutes TO regulate other
articles, and the opinion concludes as fol-
lows:
In the light of these cases. the act OF
South Carolina Of January 2, 1895, must.
as TO those OF its provisions which affect
the plaintiffs In the present suits, stand
condemned
1T is not an inspection law. The pro-
hibtion of the importation of the wines
and liquors Of other States by citizens OF
South Carolina for their own use Is made
absolute, and does not depend upon the
purity or impurity OF the articles. Only
the State functionaries are permitted TO
import into the State, and thus citizens
who wish to use foreign wines and liquors
are deprived of the exercise Of their own
judgment and taste in the selection or
those commodities. To empower a state
chemist to pass upon what the law calls
the alcoholic purity of such iInportations
by chemical analysis can scarcely come
within any definition of a reasonable In
spection Law.
1T is not law purporting to forbid the
Importation. manufacture. sale. and use
Of intoxicating liquors as articles detri-
mental TO the welfare of the State and TO
the health Of the inhabitants. and hence
IL is not within the scope and operation
of the act of Congress of August, 1880.
That law was not intended to confer upon
any State the power TO discriminate in
juriously against the products of other
States In articles whose manufacture and
use are not forbidden, and which are,
therefore. the subjects of legitimate com
merce. The question whether given
State law Is a lawful exercise of the police
power is still open, and must remain open,
to this court. such law may forbid en-
eating liquors and be valid, or
It may provide equal regulations
for the inspection and sale Of all
domestic and imported liquors, and be
valid. But the State cannot. under the
| congressional legislation referred TO, es-
tablish a system. which, in effect dis
eliminates between interstate and do
nestle commerce In commodities, to make
and use which are admitted TO be law
full
1T was pressed on US, in the argu-
ment. that it is not competent for a
state, in the exercise of it's police power,
to monopoizo the traffic In intoxicating
liquors, and thus put itself in compe-
tition with the citizens Of the other
States. This phase of the subject is
novel and interesting, but we 90 not
think il necessary for us now to con-
slider it. 1t is sufficient for the present
cases to hold as we do. that when a
State recognizes the manufacture, sale,
and use of intoxicating liquors as .aw-
full II cannot discriminate against the
bringing Of such articles in, anu the i'm
porting them from. other States; that
such legislation is void, as a hindrance
to interstate commerce. and an unjust
preference of the products of the en-
acting State as against similar products
Of the other States.
"There has been filed In the record
suggestion by the Attorney General Of
the State OF South Carolina that, since
the trials of these cases in the court be-
low. there has been passed by the Gene
raj Assembly of that State a further act,
approved by the Governor on March 6,
1895. which act, it is submitted. super
sedes and repeats parts Of the act which
has been under consideration in these
cases: and we are asked to consider this;
but so far n these actions at law are.
concerned, il is, of course, obvious thaa
the damages recovered were for acts
committed under the alleged authority
of the act of 1895, and cannot be affected
by the provisions of the act of 1896, even
If the invalidities of the former act were
thereby remeded-a matter on which we
express no opinion.
"The judgments Of the Circuit Court
are affirmed"