The county record. [volume] (Kingstree, S.C.) 1885-1975, 1897-06-10
| S|MONTON ON D|SPENSARY.
State Cannot Supply Liquors as a
Beverage to Increase Revenue.
FLATFOOTED DECISION.
Federal Court Judge Holds That the
South Carolina Measure in Conflict
With Interstate Commerce Laws.

In the United States Circuit Court,
at Charleston, South Carolina, Judge
Simonton handed down his decision in
what is widely known as the Wander
cook case, case which involved the
validity of many provisions of the
South Carolina dispensary law. The
decision created a sensation when it
was learned that the court had declared
certain provisions of the law in conflict
with the interstate commerce regula-
tions of Congress, and that conse-
quently it might result in the total
downfall of the South Carolina monop-
oily of the whiskey business within her
borders.
In q syllabus prefxed to the full text
of tho 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 beverage of alcoholic liquors,
are public evils, and having thus de-
clared, can forbid such manufacture,
sale, barter and exchange, or use, with
in her territory. But when State rec
ognizes and approves the manufacture,
sale, barter and exchang and the use
as beverage of alcoholic liquors, and
the State itself encourages the manu-
fscture, engages in the sale of and pro-
vides for the consumption of alcoholic
liquors as beverage, and SO precludes
the idea that such manufacture, sale,
barter. exchange or use are injurious to
the public welfare, II is not lawful ex-
ercise of the police power to forbid the
J importation of such liquors, or their
sale in original packages, for personal
use and consumption.
"Such prohibition under sucs. cir
cumstances is in conflict with the laws
of interstate and foreign commerce.
"The dispensary act of 1896 as
amended by the act of 1897, inasmuch
as they approve the purchase and man
ufacture of alcoholic liquors for the
State and provide for the sale of such
alcoholic liquors as beverage, In aid
of the finances of the State. in so far as
they forbid the importation of alcoholic
liquors in original packages for such
use In this State, are In conflict with
laws of Interstate and foreign COM
merce, and are, therefore, to that ex-
tent void"
The court then goes into lengthy
discussion of the facts and the law of
the case. Judge Simonton's summary
of the facts before him is as follows:
"This is bill in equity. The bill al
leges that the complainant is the owner
of VINEYARDS in the State of California
aud that it manufactures from grapes
| of such vineyards, well known pure
wines, brandies and other liquors, par
ticularly clarets, Rhine wine, Burgun-
dies and champagne. That by its
travelling agent the complainant
took orders from certain citi-
zens and residents of the
State of South Carolina, to deliver to
each of them certain original packages,
products of its vineyards, 8lled said
orders and shipped from San Francisco
in California to Charleston, S. c., by
rail, carload of its products contain
ing 73 separate original packages for
each of its said customers, all marked
with its name and address in Califor-
mia, adopting this mode Of shipping by
carload in order to obtain large reduc-
ton in freight. That the goods SO
shipped arrived in Charleston, passing
through the hands of several common
carriers in continuous route; and there
upon we're seized without warrant by
Defendants Baher and Scott and sixty
of the packages were shipped by said
constables to Columbia to John +. Gas
ton, then the State Commissioner and
got into his hands and then the bust
ness 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 de-
liver 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
constables and others, claiming like
| authority, threaten to seize in like man
ner, all wines shipped by complainant
| into this State wherever found, and for
whatever purpose shipped, arriving in
said city of Charleston, and IN like
manner to ship and deliver the same to
said s. W. Vance, who likewise threat
ems to convert the same to the great
| damage of complainant, and the OBJ
| struction and destruction Of the lawful
| business anu lutcI -CIalC OoniIuOiSo oAe
trade in its wines, ETC., with citizens
and residents of South Carolina The
bill further alleges arrival Of the same
in South Carolina, and the wrongful
seizure of the same by State constables:
That other orders have been obtained
from other residents of South Carolina
for separate original packages, and that
upon such orders complainant purposes
to ship such packages to South Carolina
in due course of interstate commerce.
And that in the future it intends to
seek similar orders and to ship
thereupon similar original packages
into the State of South Carolina
The bill further alleges that it intends
in the course of its business, further
ane in addition to such shipments or
orders by customers in advance, to ship
also from San Francisco, Cal, to its
agent in the State of South Carolina
and to the store and warehouse in
South Carolina, and to sell in the State
of South Carolina in the original pack
ages as imported as aforesaid, to resi-.
dents in South Carolina, its wines and
liquors, products of its vineyards, IN
Tho dino on6 laufnl eyarcise of Its