The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1897-01-20
Simonton sDecision Upheld.
The Dispensary Law Declared
Unconstitutional Insofar as
It Prohibits Importation.

WASHINGTON, Jan 18 The su
preme court Of the United States
to day decided that the famous dis
pensary law of South Carolina. at
least SO far as it attempted to preven:
a citizen Of the State from importing
into the commonwealth liquors for
his own use, was in violation of the
interstate commerce law of the Fed
eral Constitution, and therefore null
and void The opinion Of the court
was prepared by Mr.. Justice Shiras,
but in his absence owing to indispo-
sition, it's conclusions were an
nounced by Chief Justice Fuller.
The cases at bar were begun in the
Federal court for South Carolina by
James Donald, a citizen Of that State,
upon the seizure of case of Califor.
MIA claret, six bottles of Maryland
wbiskey and a barrel of Rochester,
N Y, beer, by S. NJ Gardner. NJ.
T. Holly, Sr., E. G Beach and J NJ
Scott, State constables, acting under
the provisions Of the dispensary law
directing the seizure of all the
liquors in the hands of any common
carrier, agent or private citizen, not
sold by the State agent, whether i'm
ported or otherwise The trial court
gave Donald judgment for $500 in
each case and the eonstables appeal
ed The cases we're argued last fall,
the validity of the entire law being
brought into question The opinion
of the court stated that the proceed
ings were not suit against the
State, which could not be brought
without it's consent, and that the
pleadings of the record raised ques-
tions which gave the supreme court
of the United States Jurisdiction Of
the whole subject The law was
discussed at great length on the
opinion and many authorities cited,
the result being that the judgment Of
the court below in favor of the own
er Of the liquors was affirmed with
costs, for the reason that the law was
in contravention of the clause of the
national Constitution regulating COM
merce between the States The
opinion conceded that the Legislature
of the State passed the law in what
it believed to be the exercise Of it's
police power aud with no intention
10 interfere with the operation of any
Federal law or to discriminate
against the products of any other
State, but that intention, it contiued,
could not finally control the determi-
nation Of the effect of the law.
Mir. Justice Brewer did not hear
the argument and took no part in the
decision.
Mr. Justice Brown recorded
vigorous dissent, saying: "The ef-
feet of the enactment of the Wilson
law seems to me to Withdraw intoxi-
eating liquors from the operation of
the commerce clause of the Consti-
tuition and to permit the traffic in
them to be regulated in such man
ner as the several States, in the
exercise of their police powers, shall
deem best for the general interests of
the public This act is not limited
in its operation, as the majority opln-
ion seems to assume, to State laws
forbidding the importation, manufac-
ture and sale of such liquors, but de.
clares that they shall be subject upon
their arrival within the State TO the
operation of all it's 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 originally pro-
duced there, and as the dispensary
law deos not declare them contra.
band as imported liquors or because
they were not bought from State
officer authorized to sell the same,
and as the law makes no discrimina
ton in that particular between i'm
ported and domestic liquor, it is i'm
possible for me to see why congress
has not directly authorized the action
that was taken by the State officers
in seizing these liquors.
But as I understand, the court
bases, to certain extent, its opinion
of the constitutionality of this act
upon the fact that the traffic in in.
tox icating liquors is not absolutely
prohibited, but is monopolized by the
State itself through the agency of a
State commission.
Granting that the act gives the
State itself a monopoly of all the
traffic in such liquors, it is not a
monopoly in the ordinary or obvious
sense of the term, where one lndivid-