The news & observer., 1897-01-20
s { D|SPiNSARY CASE
A Full Text OF Justice Shilas'
Opinion.
NOT AN INSPECTION LAW
Under PrecedentS the Federal
Court Had Jurisdiction.
NOT AN INSPECTION LA,
THE LAW DISCUSSED AT LENGTH
II Does Not Purport to Prohibit the
Importation, Manufa cture or
Sale of intoxicating
Liquors.

Liquors.
Washington, Jan. 19.-The full text of
Justice Shiras' opinion in the South Car
olina dispensary law cases, delivered yes
terday in the Supreme Court of the Unit
ed States, was made public to-day. Stat
ing the grounds Of the suit the Justice
said:
''In the Circuit Court for the District
of South Carolina, in February, 1895.
two suits at law were brought hy J. NJ.
Scott and one Gardner. and others,
against James Donald, wherein the plain
tiffs sought to recover damages caused
by the action Of the defendants who were
State eonstables of the State OF South
Carolina, in seizing and carrying away
several packages of wines and liquors be-
longing to the plaintiffs, and, at the time
of the seizure, in the possession OF rail-
road companies, which, as common car
riers had brought the packages within the
State"
The first half OF the opinion is devoted
to showing that under precedents the
Federal Court had jurisdiction. The
more important and difficult question"
of the constitutionality of the dispensary
law is then taken up with the especial end
in view of determining whether the stat
ute is lawful exercise Of the police power
of the State. The concession is made at
the outset that the law was passed in
the bona hde exercise OF police power,
and the South Carolina lawmakers are
relieved OF the imputation of any design
TO interfere with the rights Of her citi-
zens or those of any other
State. But" the opinion con-
tinues, ''our willingness to believe
that this statute was enacted in good
faith, and to protect the people OF the
State from the evils of unrestricted inn
portation, manufacture and sale OF ardent
spirits, cannot control the final deter
mination whether the statute. IN some Of
its provisions is not repugnaln to the
Constitution OF the United States"
The point is made that the dispensary
law does not purport to prohibit either
the importation, the manufacture, or the
use or sale Of intoxicating liquors
But IL is asserted that these operations
by whom alone they are to be conducted
Quoting the third and fifth sections of
the act, it is asserted to be undisputabe
in view OF them that whatever may be
said OF the law, it was not intended to
prohibit the manufacture. sale or use Of
Intoxicating liquors"
The inspection part OF the law is then
taken up and discussed at length. 1t was
sought by the defenders of the law to
sustain it as an inspection act, within
the meaning of the provision OF the con-
stitution of the United States which per-
mits the States to impose excise duties
as far as they may be absolutely necessa-
ry for executing their inspection laws 4
Justice Shiras admits that the act does,
indeed, contain provisions looking to the
ascertainment Of the purity of liquors and
TO that extent may be said to be in the
nature Of am inspection law. But" he
says, "those provisions such as they are.
do not redeem the act from the charge of
being an obstruction and interference
with foreign and interstate commerce."
This aspect of the, question has been sew
eral times considered by this court in
cases where similar attempts were made
TO sustain State statutes AS legitimate
inspection laws and the opinion quotes
various decisions bearing upon the case,
among others Railroad Company VS..
Husen and Leisy VS.. Harden. In the
first of these the validity of an act of the
State OF Missouri which forbade the in
PRODUCTION into the State of any Texan
or Mexican cattle between the months OF
March and December of each year, was
considered
1T was contended on behalf of the law
mat It was valid as quarantine or in
spection law, as its purpose was to pre-
vent the introduction OF cattle afflicted
with contagious diseases. But the court
pointed out that no provision was made
for the actual inspection of the cattle, so
as to secure the rejection OF those that
were diseased but that all importation OK
cattle, whether sound or diseased was
forbidden for long periods: and it was
held that the statute was void ms a plain
intrusion upon the exclusive domain OF
Congress.
On Leisy VS.. Harden 1t was recognized
mat ardent spirits, distilled liquors, ale
md heer, are subjects OF exchange, bar
ter and traffic like any other commodition
IN which right Of traffic exists and that
being thus articles of commerce State
in the absence OF legislation on
he part OF Congress, prohibit their impor-
Iation from abroad or from sister State,
nor when imported prohibit their sale by
the importer; and, accordingly it was
held that a statute OF the State of Iowa,
prohibiting the sale of any Intoxicating
liquors except for pharma ceutical, medi-
,al, chemical or sacra mental purposes,
nd under a license from eOunty r0urt
pf the State. was, as applied to sale
~ the importer and in the original pack
lges or kegs, unhroken and unopened Of