The Roanoke times. (Roanoke, Va.) 1897-1977, 1897-06-02

MERCE-IN THE vANDERCOOK
CASE He FINDS THAT OUTSIDE
CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO
BRING LIQUORS INTO THE STATE
IN ORIGINAL PACKAGES FOR
PERSONAL USE-LOoKS LIKE
DOWNFALL OF DJspENsARY.
charleston, S. c., June In the
United States circuit court this morning
Judge Simontun handed down his decis-
ion in what is widely known as the Van
dercook case, 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 pro
visions of the law in conflict--with the in
terstate commerce regulations of Con
gress, and that consequently it might re-
suit in the total downfall OF the South
Carolina monopoly OF the whislley bust.
ness within her borders
In Il syllabus prefixed to the full text
OF the decision, Judge Simonton says:
Amy State may, in the exercise of its
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 declared,
can forbid such manufacture, sale. barter
and exchange or use within her territory,
But when such State recognizes and
approves the manufacture, sale, barter
and exchange and use OF ms beverage of
alcoholic liquors, and the State itself en-.
courages the manufacture, engages in the
sale of, and provides for the consumption
OF alcoholic liquors as II beverage, and so
precludes the idea that such manufac-
ture, sale, barter, exchange or use nre
injurious to the public welfare, it is not
a lawful exercise of police power to for
bid the importation of such liquors or
their sale in original packages for per
sonal use and consumption.
''Such prohibition under such circum-
stances is in conflict with the law Of in.
terstate and foreign commerce. The dis
pcnsary act OF 1896 us amended by the net
of 1897, inasmuch as they approve the
purchase and manufacture OF alcohlic
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 al.
coholic liquors in original packages for
such use in this State, are in conflict with
merce, and are therefore to that extent
void.'
The court then goes into a lengthy dis.
cnssion of facts and the law of the case.
Judge Simonton's summary of the facts
before him is as follows:
This is bill in equity, filed by COM
plainant, n corporation of the State of Cali
fornia against S. w. Vance, who Is State
commissioner under the dispensary law,
and w. \. Bahr and others, who are State
constables, appointed TO put this law into
execution. The bill alleges that the com
plainant-is an owner of vineyards in the
State of California, and that it is manu-
featured from grapes of such Vineyards.
we'll known pure wines, brandies, and
other liquors, particularly 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 it's vineyards,
filled said orders, and shipped from San
Francisco, in California, to Charleston,
S. c., by rail, carload OF it's products
containing seventy three separate original
packages for each of it's said customers,
all marked with it's name and add ess in
California, adopting this mode of ship
ping by carload in order to obtain large
reduction in freight"
The judge reviews at great length the
laws of the case, and concludes his decis-
icn as follows: sit is manifest, therefore,
that the same conclusion must he reached
with regard to the dispensary act of 1897,
which was reached by the supreme court
of the United States rs to the act of 1895,
that 1T is not within the scope and opera
ton of the Wilson act This being the
case, the law Laid down in Leisy VS.. Har.
din controls this case, and the attempt to
forbid the. importation and sale of spirit
Gus liquors in original packages must
fail
1.-The decision of the supreme court of
the United States must control all cir.
cult courts. BY this decision it is clear
that so long rs the State itself engages in
tine business of importing and selling
alcoholic liquors..for the purpose of profit,
the use of alcoholic liquors ms a beverage
is lawful and can be encouraged. So long
as 1t seeks monopoly in supplying
these liquors for that use. and in this
way looks to an increase of her revenue,
she cannot, under her constitutional OBJ
legations to the other States OF this
Union, forbid control. hinder, and burden
commerce in such articles between their
citizens and her own