The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1897-01-20
i1,7 OisPENsARY DECISION.
,xcIIDI THE WHOLE
Il W. OF THE law

.,+es into SCUM O"r
er = the Cout Is to support
sP'r'' looking tothe suppression
Laws .-ancc-If the state Inn
OF i"'. ems Citzens May Do So
ra-yot an Inspection Law
Aiso Ian p.-The fun text of
Nasn' i.. 'r tbe ca,e of the South Car
the o'l''' ..s.r,, IA W delivered in the su-
dina 'i'I.... If the United States yester-
preme - - rktce Fuller for Justice
& day D' +o-dat available for eXamina-
sAiTAS' .,,,s hit the court expressed
ton - u,on he validity of certain
no opi'''s 81 t5e Inv. but declared to be
pfO',- .,ltntional tlDse portions which for
uH'. 10 importation of LIQUORS by private
icons for personal use
p',,. .,, having disposed of the question OF
Az. ,,,r ustict Shiras says: 1--WE are
1u,. . thought to the more important ana
ho" question whether the so-called
jim. ..orv law of the state of South Car
oA +, indeed. as to some or all OF It's
O''D Invalid as Icing in conflict with the
pa .,,,tion of the United States and acts
'o4 ...eress made hereunder? Is that
o inca lawful exercise of the police pow
er Of the state?
..rbe difficulty is shown in the frequent
elaborate dissents in many
hs cases presenting similar
snsstjons Sill. it can be
S civ said that the differences of opin-
So inns manifested have not been so
p .,ob mon fundamental principles, as
nl nue. oIiestions If the construction and
waning of the various state statutes
iLat nave been under consideration.
t
oTb4 evils attending the vice of intem-
..rancA in the use of spirituous liquors
- so great that a natural reluctance Is
az. in appearing to interfere, even on con-
..irltional grounds, with any law whose
srou,ed purpose is to restrict or prevent
60 mischief So long, however, as state
iagislation continues to recognize wines,
bssr and spirituous liquors as articles Of
iavfijI consumption and commerce, so
iang must continue the duty of the fed
arai courts to afford to such use and
o,,nerce the same measure of protec-
,ion under the constitution and laws of
t ,l0'' United States, as is given to other
articles.
1t is important to observe that the stat
r.e before US does not purport to prohibit
either the Importation, the manufacture,
The sale or the use of intoxicating liq-
uors.
Those operations are turned over to
state functionaries, by whom alone, or
under whose direction, they are to be car
red 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 concluded: TN
the light of these cases, the act of South
Carolina Of Jan. @ 1895, must as to those
provisions which effect the plaintiffs in
the present suits, stand condemned.
1T is not an inspection law. The pro-
hIbiton 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 on 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 liz
uors are deprived of the exercise of their
own judgment and taste in the selection
Of commodities. To empower a state
chemist to pass upon what the law calls
the alcoholic purity of such importa-
tons by chemical analysis can scarcely
come within any definition of a reasonable
inspection law.
1T is not a law purporting to forbid the
importation, manufacture, sale and use of
intoxicating liquors, as articles detrimen-
tai 10 the welfare of the state and to the
health of the inhabitants, and hence it is
not within the scope and operation of the
act Of congress of August, 1890. That law
was not intended to confer upon any state
the power to discriminate injuriously
against the products of other states in ar
tices, whose manufacture and use are
not forbidden, and which are, therefore,
the subjects Of legitimate commerce. The
question whether a given state law is a
lawful exercise of the police power is
still open, and must remain open to this
court Such a law may forbid entirely
the manufacture and sale of Intoxicating
liquors and be valid. Or 1t may provide
equal regulation for the inspection and
sale Of all domestic and imported liquors
and be valid. But the state cannot, I'M
DER the congressional legislation referred
10, establish a system, which in effect
discriminates between interstate and do
nestle commerce in commodities to make
and use which are admitted to be law
ful.
1T was pressed on us in the argument
That 1t is not competent for state, in
the exercise of its police power, to mo-
nopolize the traffic in intoxicating liquors,
and thus put itself in competition with
The citizens of the other states. This
phase Of the subject is novel and interest
Ing, but we do not think it necessary for
US now to consider 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 Ii
quors as lawful, it cannot dis
eliminate against the bringing
Of such articles in, and the importing them
from other states; that such legislation
Is void as a hindrance to interstate COM
merce, and an unjust preference of the
PRODUCTS of the enacting state as against
similar products of the other states.
There has been filed in the record a
suggestion by the attorney general of the
slate of South Carolina that, since the
'rals Of these cases in the court below,
here has been passed by the general as
eemhy OF that state a further act APP
proved by the governor on March 6, 1896,
which act It is submitted supersedes and
repeals part of the act which has been I'M
oer consideration in these cases; and we
are asked to consider the provisions of
Inc more recent act.
80 far as these actions at law are con-
cerned it is. of course, obvious that the
damages recovered were for acts com
mitted under the alleged authority of the
act of 1kgh and napunt he -