The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1897-01-20
THE DISPENsARY LAW
Text Of the Decision of The Supreme Court
Holding II Unconstitutional.
INTERPRETERS WITH INTERSTATE TRADE
The Attempt WAS Made to HIVE the
Court Dcetnro the Uuconatitutiou.
"iitS of tho Law On Different
Gronuds. but the rourt De.
cidCs on thIs Alone.

| Grounds. but Tho rourt DC.
cidcs on this Alone.
| Washington, Jan. 19.-'rhe full text of
he opinion in the case Of the South
Carolina dispensary law, delivered in
| the Supreme Court of the United States
yesterday by Chief Justice Fuller for
Justice ShiraS, was to-day available for
discrimination. 1t shows that the court
depressed no opinion upon the validity
OF certain provisions of the law, but de-
CARED To be unconstitutional those por-
lions which forbid the Importation OF
! liquors by private persons for private
use. After having disposed OF the qucs
ton OF jurisdiction. Justice ShiraS said:
IS THE LAW INVALID?
I'VE are now brought to the more
and difficult question whether the So
called dispcnsary law of the State of
South Carolina is, indeed, as to some
OF all of its parts. invalid. as being in
conflict with the constitution of the
United States and acts OF Congress
made Hereunder. Is that statute law
iul exercise of the police power of the
State.
'"rhe difficulty is shown in the fire.
quent and elaborate dissents In many OF
the cases presenting similar questions.
Still II can be safely said that the diff
1erences Of opinion thus manifested have
not been so much upon fundamental
principles. as upon questions of the con-
Struction and meaning of the various
! state statutes that have been under
consideration.
TOUCHING ON TEMPERANCE
The evils attending the vice of in
temperance in the use of spurious
| liquors are so great that Il natural re-
"a in ,ri, 10, ;,,t
iere. even on constitutional grounds
with any law whose avowcd purpose is
10 restrict or prevent the mischief. So
long however, as state Legislation con-
llnues to recognize wines, beer ana
| spurious liquors as articles of lawful
consumption ana commerce. so long
must continue the duty of the Federal
courts 10 afford To such use and COM
! MERGE the same measure of protection
under the constitution and laws Of the
United States, as is given to other ar,i-
cleS.
III is important to observe that the
statute before us does not purport to
prohibit either the importation, the
manufacture, the sale or theusc of in
toxicating liquors.
THOSE operations are turned over to
state functionarics. by whom alone. or
! unucr whose direction they arc tn be
carried on"
AN INSPECTION LAW.
| Discussing the allegation that the law
was an inspection law. Justice Shiras
reviewed the decisions of the court Ipon
state inspection statutes to regulate
other articles. and the opinion con-
lcludcS:
In the light of these cases the act
OF South Carolina of January ID, 1891
must, as To those of it's provisions which
all ect the plaintiffs in the present suits
stand condemned
~ Is not an inspection law. The pro-
hibition of the Importation of the wines
ana liquors of other Statcs by citizens
OF South Carolina for their own use is
made absolute, and does not depend on
! IN" purity or implrity Of the articles
only the state functionaricS are per-
mittcd to import into tho State. and thus
citi@enS who wish To use foreign wines
and liquors are deprived Of the exercise
ioi their own judgment and taste in the
Scicction of commodities TO empower
! n state chemist to pass upon what tho
law calls the alcoholic purity OF such
importations by chemical analysis can
+ scarcely come within any definition of
reasonable inspection law.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE..
| 1T is not law purporting TO forbid
the importation. manufactures sale and
use oil Intoxicating liquors, as articles
detrimental 10 the welfare os the state
anu 10 lfc HcHltn OF the inhabitants
ana hence it is not within the sconc
ana operation Of the act OF Congress
OF August 1880. That law was not in
tended to confer upon any State the
power to discriminate iniuriouslv
AGAINST the products OF other States i'm
articles whose manufacture and use arc
not forbidden. and which are therefore
Inc subjects of legitimate commerce.
me question whether n given state
law is lawful exercise of the police
power is still open and must remain
| open, TO this court. Such a law NAV
forbid entirely the manufacture and sale
/ OF all domestic ana imported liquors to
be valid; But the State cannot. under
/ Inc Congressional legislation referred 10
establish system which. in effect. dis
criminateS between interstate and do
/ neSiic commerce IN commodities TO
make and use which are admitted TO lie
/ lawful.
1T was pressed on US. in the areu-
| ment. that ii is not competent for n
state in the exercise of its police poIycr
10 monopolze the traffic in Intoxicating
liquors ana thus put Itself in compeii-
| ton with the citizens of the other States
| This phase of the subject is novel and
| interesting. but we do not think it nee
essary Tor us now TO consider 1t. 1t. is