The news & observer., 1897-01-20
THE LARGEST CIRCULATION OF ANY NORTH CAROLINA DAILY PAPER

1iUth ddFVbAEJ Observation-Disclosures dlItl
void, as repugnant to the clause of the
constitution granting to Congress the
power TO regulate commerce with foreign
nations and among the several States.
I'm the light of these causes the
court concludes, ''the act Of South Caro-
lima of January 2, 1895, must, as to those
of lis provisions which affect the plain
tiffs in the presnt suits, stand con-
demnend' The opinion continues, 'It
is not an inspection law. The prohibi-
tion of the importation OF the wines and
liquors of other States by citizens of
South Carolina for their own us 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 those
citizens who wish to use foreign wines
and liquors 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
importations by chemical analysis can
scarcely come within any definition of a
reasonable inspection law.
ut is not law purporting to forbid
the importa ton, manufacture, sale and
use of intoxicating liquors, as articles
detrimental to the welfare of the State
to the health of the inhabitants, and
hence it is not within the scope and opera
ton Of the act of Congress of August,
1890. That law was not intended to con-
fer upon any State the power to discrimi-
nate injuIiously against the products OF
other States in articles whose manufac-
ture and use are not forbidden and which
are, therefore, the subjects of legitimate
commerce. When that law provided that
all fcrmented, distilled or intoxicating
liquors transported into any State or
Territory, remaining therein for use, con-
sumption, sale or storage there, should,
upon arrival in such State or Territory,
be subject to the operation and effect Of
the laws of such State or Territory en-
acted in the exercise OF its police powers,
to the same extent and in the sau1e man
ner as though such liquids or liquors had
been produced in such State or Territory
and should not be exempt therefrom by
reason of being introduced therein in
original packages or otherwise evidently
quality or uniformity OF treatment under
State laws was intended. The question
whether a given State law is lawful
EXERCISE or the police power is still open
and must remain open to this court.
Such a law may forbid entirely the man
ufacture and sale Of intoxicating liquors
and he 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 Il system which, in effect, dis
eliminates between Interstate and
domestic commerce in commodities to
l. l. IL. l. 4.
lawful
Whether those provisions Of the act
which direct that so-calIed contraband
| liquors may be seized, without warrant
| by any State constable, sheriff or police
| nan. while in transit or after arrival,
whether in possession OF a common car
rier, depot agent, express agent, or pri-
vate persons. and which subject common
carriers to fine and Imprisonment for
carrying liquors in any package, cask,
jug, box or other package, under any
| other than the proper name or brand
known to the trade and which forbid the
| bringing of any suit for damages alleged
to arise by seizing and detention of
liquors under the act, would be lawful
in an inspection law, otherwise valid. we
do not find it necessary to now consider"
Concluding Justice Shiras says:
1T was pressed on US, in the argument,
that It Ia not competent for State, in
the exercise of its police power, to monop-
. olize 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
interesting, but we do not think it nee
essary for us now to consider it. 1t is
Fos- 3 H. u 4
as we do, that when State recognizes
the manufacture, sale and use Of intoxi-
eating liquors as lawful, it cannot dis
criminate against the bringing of sIch
articles in and importing them from other
States; that such legislation is void as a
hindrance to interstate commerce and an
unjust preference of the products Of the
enacting State as against similar pro-
ducts OF the other States.
There has been filed in the record q
suggestion by the Attorney General OF
the State of South Carolina that, since
the trials OF these cases the court below,
there has been passed by the General AS
gsembly OF that State a further act ap-
proved by the Governor on March 6,
1896, which act it is submitted, supersedes
and repaals parts of the act which has
been under consideration In these cases;
and we are asked to consider the provi-
sions of the more recent act. So far as
these actions at law are concerned, it is
of course, obvious that the damages re-
covered were for acts committed under
the alleged authority of the act of 1895
aud cannot be affected by the provisions
of the act Of 1896, even il the invalidities
of the former act were thereby remedied
a matter on which we express no opinion
THE judgments of the circuit court are
affirmed"
The court at the same time and also
through Justice Shiras rendered an opin-
ion in snoihe. case in which James non-
aid sought to enjoin the officers Of the
State from continuing to So zc his prop
erty for the use of the State. rhe CIR
cnit court had granted the Injunction.
ih's Judgment was affirmed bur was
modified so as not to include officers of
the State. not named IN the suit I'VE
have ,, Savs tho orripioYs fa rioht 70 s1ra-