The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1897-06-10
JUDGE SIdONrON's DECISION.
The Dispcnsary Law is n Violation Of
Interstate COmmcrCe-The State
Cannot Forbid the Sale OF Liquor
In Original Packages.

| Cannot Forbid the Sale OF Liquor
in Original Packages.
Judge Simonton, in filing his decis.
ion in the Vandercock case at Charles.
ton, declares that the prohibition of i'm
port and sale of liquor into the State
is In violation Of the Interstate COM
merce law. He has issued an Injunction
restraining the State Of South Carolina
from seizing liquor imported and Offer
ed for sale. The State may sell liquor,
but 1t must do so in competition with
other parties. II can no longer hold
Tor ltsolf monopoly Of the business.
The syllabus OF the decision is as fol-
lows:
The United States OF America, District
of South Carolina, in the Circuit
Court, in Equity.
The w. A. Vandercock Co. vs.. S. w.
Vance, w. N. Bahr, J. M. Scott, w.
Livingston, G. S. Moseley, d. w. Pe.
terman.
Any State may in the exercise of the
police power declare that the manufac-
ture, sale, barter and exchange, or the
use as u beverage of alcoholic liquors
are public evils. and having thus de-
clared can forbid such manufacture,
sale, barter and exchange or use within
her territory.
But, when State recognizes and ap-
proves the manufacture, sale, barter
and exchange and the use as u bower
age OF alcoholic liquors, and the State
itself encourages the manufacture, on
cages In the sale Of ana provides for
= the consumption Of alcoholic liquors as
, beverage, and sOSprecludes the idea
that such manufacture, sale, barter
+ oXcnange or use are injurious to the
d public welfare, 1t is not within the DO
Q lice power to forbid the importation of
- such liquors or their sale in original
Il packages for personal use and con-
sumption. Such prohibition under
x such circumstances is in conflict wi WITH
ID the laws OF Interstate and foreign
"a commerce.
rs me dlspensary act of 1896, as amend
le ed by act Of 1897, inasmuch as they ap.
A. prove the purchase and manufacture
t. OF alcoholic liquors for the State and
'. provide for the sale of such alcoholic
,r liquors as beverage in aid of the
~ finances of tho State. in SO far as they
forbid the Importation of alcoholic
q liquors in original packages for such
20 use In this State, are in conflict with
!, the laws of Interstate and foreign com
It mcrce, and are, therefore, to that ex
# tent void.
=: We add the concluding words O
" Judge Simonton, that our readers ma,
II see the elect OF the decision:
I'd 1T will be noted that the use of alec
ct hollc liquors as beverage ls not pro
Or hlblted nor Is their importion for per
is sonai uso forbidden, provided Sue!
n beverages arc free from poisonous
ne hnrttulland deicterious matter" otbe
ls, than the alcohol in them.
e The act provides the essential AM
n conclusive test on this point, the certi
rs ticate Of the chemist Of the South Care
an lima College. The act also declares al
~, alcoholic liquors, not tested by tn
IT, chemist OF the South Carolina COlleg
no and 80 found to be free "from poison
* GUS, hurtful aud delcterious matters,
m necessarily matters other than alco
re- hollc Ingredients, to be of detrimen
IS, tal character and their use and con
al sumption to be against the morals
good health and safety of the State
or lhat Ia TO say, without regard what
1g ever to their real character, the pres
4 ence or absence Of the certificate ia the
d. sole test This can be sustained onl,
as on the fact that it Is q valid inspection
to law
w There can be no doubt that a State
3, can enact laws protecting its citiZ II,
~ IN the purchase Of articles, imported
es or domestic, from purchasing some
re- thing they did not intend to buy, OF
Ia adulterated so as to threaten disease
In or death. (Pmmley Va. Massec ch usetts
1s 100 U. 5. 46l.) But it must oe O law
ID which protects or at least tends +.
O. protect the citizen. 1t must give him
as security, If it does not do so absolute
0, him. wv w ''o"''
p The mode Of inspection in this ac
IL by samples Let it be supposed that
p, the sample has been furnished, has
70 been Inspected, has been approved AID
o that the certificate has been sert tc
y the c0nslgnor. What sort of assurance
10 does 1t give the citizen that this LIQUOR
1t he thereu2on receives, accords with
d comes up to or in any wise resembles
G the sample. What protection does II
g give the citizon from frauu, from q
e failure to send liquor according tc
q sample. None whatever. 1t only sub.
h Jects him to the seizure and forfeiture
X OF his goods, II perchance they should
n be inspected. The fraudulent Sc !ler il
r out OF reach. Upon what then must
|, the citizen rely? He can only rely
y upon the business character, standing
: and integrity Of the person from whom
ne ouys, without any regard whatever
= to the inspection.
This so-ralled inspection, furnish.
, ing no security to the citizep, cannot
wy w JuoUlhous IL CHI operate
only as q restriction upon, hindrance
( and burden to his acknow wledged right
7 to import for his personal use. It is
thus an Interference with Interstate
} commerce and in itself void.
The language In Mugler vs. Kansas,
J l23 U. S. G23, has some application
here. "If q statute purporting to have
J been enacted to protect the public
health, the public morals or the public
safety, has noureal or substantial re-
iation to these objects, or Is palpabe
Invasion OF rights secured by the fun
damental law, 1t Is the duty OF the
court to abridge them and thereby
give effect 10 the constitutions"
The same mode of inspection by sam.
pie would seem to be used in all thu
liquors issued by the State commits.
i sioner, (22 Statutes 541.)