The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1897-06-01
DlSPENSARY LAW IN DANGER.
JUDGE sIMONToN DEALS II a HARD
BLOW.

the Interstate Commerce Law be-
cnuse the state Itself Engages in
the Liquor TrafEic For Profit.
Charleston, S. c., May 31.-In the United
| States circuit court this morning Judge
Simonton handed down his decision in
what is widely known as the NandercooN
/ case, a case which involved the validity
of many provisions of the South Carolina
| dispensary law.
! The decision created sensation when it
was learned that the court had declared
certain provisions of the law in conflict
with the interstate commerce regulations
of congress. and that consequently 1t
might result in the total downfall of
South Cardinals monopoly of the whisky
business within her borders.
In a syllabus prenxed to the full text
of the decision. Judge simonton says.
ANY state may, in the exercise of the
! police power, declare that the manufac
ture sale, barter and exchange or the
use as a beverage Of alcoholic liquors are
public evils. and having thus declared,
can forbid such manufacture, sale, barter
and exchange or use within her territory.
But when a state recognizes and ap-
proves the manufacture sale barter and
exchange and the use as a beverage of al
| eohoHc liquors and the state itself en-
courages the manufacture, engages In the
sale Of and provides for the consumption
of alcoholic liquors as a beverage, and so
precludes the idea that such manufacture,
sale, barter. exchange or use, are inju-
! rious to the public welfare, II is not
| lawful exercise OF the police power TO for
bid the importation of such liquors or their
sale in original packages for personal use
| and consumption.
'Sueh prohibition under such circum-
stances is in conflict with the laws OF in-
terstate and foreign commerce
| s1'he dispensary act of 1896 as amend
| ed by the act of 1897, inasmueh as they
| approve the purchase and manufacture 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 inn
portation of alcoholic liquors In original
| packages for such use in this state, are IN
conflict with the laws of interstate ana
foreign commerce and are therefore to
| that extent void"
The court then goes into a lengthy dis
cussion Of the facts and the law of the
case. Judge Simontons summary OF the
facts before him Is as follows.
This is a bill in equity, filed by COM
plainant, a corporation of the state OF Cal
ifornia against s. w. Vance, who is state
commissioner under the dispensary law
and w N. Bahr and others, who are state
constables appointed to put this law IN
execution.
1.-THE bill alleges that the complainant
is the owner of vineyards in the state OF
California, and that II manufactures from
grapes Of such vineyards, well known pure
wines, brandies and other liquors, par
ticularly clarets, rhine wine, burgundies
and champagne. That by its travelling
agent the complainant took orders 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 its vineyards, filled said
orders and shipped from San Francisco In
! California TO Charleston, s. c., by rail. a
carload of it's products, containing seven
ty-three separate original packages for
each of it's said customers, all marked
with its name and address In California,
adopting this mode Of shipping by carlot
in order to obtain large reduction in
freight. That the goods so shipped arriv-
ed In Charleston, passing through the
hands of seveal common carriers in con-
| tinuous route; and thereupon were seized
without warrant by defendants Bahr and
Scott and sixty of the packages we're
shipped by said constables TO Columbia TO
John r. CASTOR, then the state commits
sioner, got into his hands, and then into
the hands of his successor, S. w. Vance,
| with full notice of the unlawful seizure,
and that Vance Notwithstanding, refused
to deliver them to complainant or its agent
after repeated demands and threatens to
convert and sell the same TO citizens of
South Carolina. That these same consta-
bles and others, claiming like authority,
| threaten to seize In like manner all wines
shipped by complainant into this state
wherever found, and for whatever pur-
pose shipped, arriving in said city OF
Charleston, and In like manner 20 ship
and deliver the same to said S. w. Vance,
who likewise threatened to convert the
same to the great damage of complainant,
ana to the obstruction and destruction OF
THE lawful business and interstate com
merce and trade in Its wines, etc. with
citizens and residents OF South Carolina.
"Ihe bill further alleges the
Carolina and the wrongful seiz-
ure OF the same by state coastables.
That other orders have been obtained for
other residents OF South Carolina for
separate original packages, and that
upon such orders complainant purposes 70
ship such packages TO South Carolina In
due course Of Interstate commerce. And
that IN the future II intends to seek SINH
lar orders and to ship thereupon similar
original packages into the state OF South
. Carolina.
"rhe bill further alleges that It Intends.
| | IN the course OF It's DuhluchA, iufhhef ana
IN addition 10 such shipments so ordered
, by customers In advance, TO ship also from
San Francisco Cal. 10 It's agent In the
state Of South Carolina ana 10 store and
, warehouse In South Carolina, and to sell
In the state OF South Carolina, in the
original. unbroken packages. as imported
as aforesaid. TO residents In South Caro-
Ina, IT, wines and lksiors. products OF
It's vineyards In the due and lawful exer-
else OF It's rights under the constitution
and laws OF the United States.
"And that the defendants threaten 20
, seize, take and carry away. convert and
, sell ali such shipments. The hill then
charges that by the dispensary act OF 1897,
under which the defendants seek to jusu-
~ their action, all wines. beers. alea. az
coholie and other intoxicating liquors are
the subjects Of lawful manufacture bar
ter sale. export and import In the state
OF South Carolina, have been and are be-
ing used and VIII continue 70 be lawfully
used and consumed as a beverage By cit-
liens and residents Of the state Of South
Carolina, and that the products or its