Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1897-01-20
SlMONTON SUSTAINED.
South Carolina Dispensary Law Partly I'm
constitutional.

constitutional.
The United States supreme court On
last Tuesday, decided the portion oil
the dispensary law which provides for
the inspection of liquors imported in
the state to be in contravention to the
constitution of the United States.
The opinion, which had been prepared
by Justice Shiras, was stated very
briefly by Chief Justice Fuller. The
written opinion is very elaborate
document, but the chief justice gave a
very brief synopsis of it, declining al
terwards to give the document to the
public.
The decision was founded upon the
cases of J. NJ. Scott and R. M. Gard
ner VS.. James Donald in error 10 the
circuit court of the United States for
the district of South Carolina. The
opinion deals with two phases of the
case as presented. The first. of these
was the Jurisdiction of the circuit
court, and the second the conslitu.
tionality of the act itself. 1t was
held that there was no doubt on the
point of jurisdiction, while the law it,
self was overturned on the theory that
it discriminales against the citizens OF
other states in favor of those of South
Carolina, and is in contravention to
the right of citizens of the various
states to free Intercourse and COM
merce with those of other states. The
court based its opinion upon the facl
that the traffic in intoxicating liquors
is not absolutely prohibited, but is
monopolized by the state itselfthrough
the agency of Il state commissioner,
who is required to purchase all intox'
icating liquors for lawful sale" in the
state and to furnish the same to per-
sons as may be designated as dispen'
sers thereof" to be sold as thereafter
provided by the act.
The chief justice said that it was a
delicate matter to pass upon law
looking 10 the restriction of the traffic
in Intoxicating liquors, but that when
the law itself recognized it as a subject
of intersl ate traffic, it became the duty
of the court to regard it as any other
article of commerce, and to handle the
subject accordingly.
The chief justice declared that the
law did not conform 10 the require
ments of the Wilson bill for regulation
of interstate commerce in liquors be-
tween the states.
Justice Brown delivered a dissent
ing opinion, saying that he was una
BILE to see wherein the law conflicts
with the constitution. "The manifest
dangers to the future of the country"
he said, (Which lurk in the infiexibili-
of the federal constitution can only be
averled by carefully distinguishing be-
tween such laws as practically con-
Germ the inhabitants of particular
state only and are intended bona tide
for their welfare, and such as are a
mere subterfuge for unlawful discrimi'
nation and cannot be carried into effect
without doing palpable injustice to the
citizens of other states.
Senator Tillman is highly pleased
with the opinion. He as governor Of
the state was responsible for the dis
pensary law, and has been very much
interested in the result of the litiga-
ton over the law. He says the opin
ion delivered today does not affect the
merits of the law as a whole, and that
the part covered, applying as it does
only to the interstate commerce feature
of the law, really makes the law in its
application to the state stronger than
it was before.