The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1897-01-28

1
the products Of any uthor State, but
Inat Intention, it continued, could not
unally control the determination OF
tho effect OF the law.
Iho Chief Justice said that it was q
aelicatc matter to pass upon u law
looking to the restriction Of the traffic
IN Intoxicating liquors, but that when
the law itself cognizcd it as a subject
OF Interstate traffic, it became the DUTY
OF Inc court to regard itas any other
art)c!c OF commerce, and to handle the
subject accordingly.
The Chief Justice declared that the
law dld not conform to the require
mcnts of tho Wilson bill for regulation
of interstate commcrce in liquors be-
tween the States.
Mr., Justice Brown recorded Il vigo-
rous dissent, saying: "1nc effect Of
the cnactmcDtof the Wilson law seems
TO me to Withdraw Intoxicating liquors
from the operation Of the commerce
clause OF the constitution and to pcr-
nit the traffic In them to &c rcgul;it,H
IN such manner as the scvcr;;! States,
IN the exercise Of their police powers,
shall deem best for the general in
tcrests OF TIC public. This act is not
limited in its operation, as the majority
opinion seems to assnmN. 'c Str.c ,.
- ,
facture and sale OF such LIQUORS, but
declares tfIt they shall Be suffice,
upon their rival within the state 10
b." npcratCu OF all its laws enact, q in
the exercise RI its police powers.
NOV, as congress has expressly Dc.
clared that such articles shall, unnn
their arrival in the Stat, become sub
jcct to its laws to the same extent "a
If they had been originally produced
'hcrt, and rs the Gisp nsary law Co.'s
not declare them contrabard as i'm
ported liquors Or because they were
imported, bnt because they wore no.
bought from u State officer authorized
to sell the same, and as the law makes
no ;scrimination in that particular
between In mrortcd and domestic liuu0r,
1t is imrossib b c for me to sec why con-
gres. has lot directly authorized the
action that was taken by the State
olhccrs IN st.z ng these liquors.
y But as | understand, the court
bases, to u certain extent, its opinion
Of The cCnstitutiOnality Of this act upon
the Tact that tho traffic in intox caling
liquors Is not absolutely prohibited,
but IS monopolized by the State itself
through the agency OF q State commits.
sion.i
Granting that the act gives the
state itself monopoly Of all the tr& f1ic
IN such liquors, it is not a monopoly in
the ordinary Or obvious sense of the
term, whore one individual or corpora
tion is given the right to a manufactures
or trade which is not open to others,
but q monopoly for the benefit of the
whole people Of the State, the profit is
OF which, il any, arc crjnyed by the
! whole people in short. ~ monopoly in
the same sense in which the pOstOilicc
department and the right to carry the
mails, is monopoly OF the federal gov.
ernment."
Quoting Chief Justices Marshall and
Waite upon the necessity Of tho cx.
pcdicncy Of the courts acting With
great dalicacy and hC Csitation in lCclar-
ing a statute UNCONSTITUTIONAL, Justice
l'rown concluded: 81 REGARD these
words as particularly applicable to tho
dealings by this court with tho pro-
cecdiEGs Of State legislature and
that their right to dctc, mine wha. is
ior The best interests OF their people
should DO carefully respected, cxcrrj
where it comes in manifest conflict
with the dominant law. Especially
should everything be avoided which
carries tho suggestion of veXatiOus
interference with State action The
manifest dangers to the future OF the
country, which lurk in tie iplexibi-
iity Of tho Federal constitution can
only be aVrrtcd by carefully distin.
gushing between such laws as practi-
cally concern the inhabitants Of a
parlicuiar State only, and arc intend.
cd bona fide for their welfare, and such
as arc mere subtcrfugc for an un.
lawful discrimination and cannot he
carried into fleet without doing pal.
| n tn nit of nfh
S Sates. 1t should not bo overlooked in
| this connection that the complaints in
| this case cmanate from " citizen of
South Carolina, who seeks to DEFY the
| law OF bis own State and puts forward
lis his excuse the injustice done the
citizens Of other States, who make no
complaint Of her action in this parti-
cular. II u State cannot prohibit her
own citizens from importing liquors,
as well as buying them at homo, the
Wilson bill is set at naught and the
prohihitory laws Of the several States
rendered imperative in q vital parti.
cular. The fact that these liquors were
imported for complainant's own use
raises no question uldcr tho Federal
constitution. Both arc under tho ban
of the statute.
" am unable to see how that section
OF the dispensary act OF South Caro-
lima, which authorized the seizure
made in this case, conflicts in any par
ticular with the Federal constitution
Senator Tillman is highly pleas
ed with tho opinion. He as Governor
of the "te was responsible for the
Dlspens;..y law, and has been very much
interested in the result OF the litiga-
lion over the law. He says tho opiG-
ion delivered does not affect the
merits OF the law as q whole, and that
the part covered, applying as it does
only to the interstate commerce fca-
turc OF the law, really makes the law
In its application to the State stronger
than it was before
oh, dear me DleaSo foil mo how