The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-01-20
THE DISPENSARY LAW.
No OPINION rPON THL yhITDiTi
OFClRTaIS FROrISioNs
We. Fx,rcssed by Justice Shiras Only
Affected the Importation oil Liquors
for Private Use.

WASHINGTON. Jan. 10 i"' i"'' va
OF the opinion in the case of the south
Carolina dlspcnsary law, delivered In the
Supreme Court Of the United States yes
tcrdav by chief Justice Fuller for Justice
Shiras. was to-day available for eNamina~
tion. 1t shows that the court expressed
no opinion upon the validity OF certain
provisions Of the law, but declared TO De
unconstitutional those portions which Tor
hid the importation Of liquors by private
persons fer personal use. After having
disposed OF the question OF Jurisdiction
Justice Shiras said:
I'VE are now brought 20 the moro I'M
portant and difficult question whether
the so-caIIcd dispcnsary law OF the state
OF South Carolina is indeed as 10 some
or all Of it's parts invalid. as being IN
conflict with the Constitution Of the
United States and acts of Congress made
hereunder. Is that statute lawful oNor-
else Of the police power OF the State?
'"rhe difficulty is shown Ia the frequent
and elaborate disscnts I'm many CT tho
cases presenting similar questions. Stil'
II can be safely said that the differences
OF opinion thus manifested have not been
20 much upon fundamental principles as
upon questions of tho construction ana
meaning OF the various State statutes
that have been under consideration.
TEMPERANCE LAWS.
"Tho evils attending the vice q intern
pcrance I'm the use Of spirituous liquors
are so great that a natural reluctance is
felt in appearing to interfere even on
constitutional grounds, with any law
whose avOwcd purpose is 70 restrict or
prevent the mischief. SO long, however.
as State legislation continues TO recOg-
nize wines, beer and sprituOus liquors rs
articles Of lawful consumption and COM
merce. so long must continue the duty
of the Federal courts to afford to such
use and commerce the same measure Of
protection. under the Constitution and
laws Of the United States as IS given 20
other articles.
1t Is important 20 observe that the
statute before us does not purport 10
prohibit either the importation. the man
ufacturc the sale or the use Of intoxi-
eating liquors Those operations
are turned over 10 the State functional
ries. by whom alone. or under whose
direction they are to be carried on.
Discussing the allegation that the law
was an inspection law. Judge Shiras re-
viewed the decisions OF the Court upol
State inspection statutes 10 regulate other
articles and the opinion concluded:
"In the light OF these cases. the act
OF South Carolina. Of January ?. 1879.
must as TO those Of its provisions which
affect the plaintiffs in the present suits.
stand condemned.
cit is not an inspcction~1aw. The pro-
hibition of the importation Of the wines
and liquors of other States by citizens of
South Carolina. for their own use. IS
made absolute. and does not depend upon
the purity or impurity of the articles.
only the state functionaries are permit
ted to import into the State. and thus
citizens VINO wish TO use foreign wines
and liquors are deprived of the exercise Of
their own judgment and taste in the Sc
lection of commodities. To empower
state chemist to pass upon what the
law calls the alcoholic purity" Of such
importations by chemical analysis. can
scarcely come within any CefntiOn of
reasonable inspection law
INTENT OF THE LAW.
at IS not a law rurpOrtins TO forbid
the importation. manufacture. sale. and
use of intoxicating liquors as articles
detrimental TO the welfare Of the state
and TO the health of the Inhabitants.
and hence IL is not within the scope and
operation of the act of Congress of Au-
gust. 1880. That law was not intended
to confer upon any state the power To
OlStTluliHdNt llJuiibAN'S EAlilHA Ab' sib-
ducts of other Sta'es. n Articles whose
manufacture AMI use are not forbidden.
and which are. therefore the subjects
of legitimate commerce. The question
whether "A given state law Is a lawful cX-
orcisc OF the police power is still open,
and must remain open, to this court.
Such a law may forbid entirely the manu-
facture and sale of intoxicating liquors
and be valid. or ii may provide equal
regulations for the inspection ana sale
of all domestic and imported liquors. and
be valid. But the State cannot, und r.
the congressional legislation referred TO-
establish "a system which in erect dis
eliminates between interstate ana do
nestle commerce. in commodities TO
make and use which are admitted TO be
lawful.
1T was pressed on us. I'm the argu-
ment mat IL Is now competent for a
state. I'm the exercise OF its police power
to monopolize the traffic in intoxicating
liquors and thus put itself in competi-
ton with the citizens Of the other States
This phase OF the subject Isl novel and
interesting. but we do not think IL neces-
sary FOR MS now TO consider IT, IL is
sufficient for the present cases TO hold
as we do. that when State recognizes
the manufacture sale. and use of in
toNicating liquors. as lawful II cannot
discriminate against the bringing OF such
articles in. and importing them from
other States: that such legislation is
void as a hindrancc TO interstate COM
mcrce. and an unjust preference of the
fproducts OF the enacting state as against
similar products OF the other States.
RECENT ENACTMENTS.
"There has been filed in the record
suggestion 10y the Attorney General OF
the state Of South Carolina that. since
the trials OF these cases in the court be
low. there has been passed by the Gen
cral Assembly Of that State q further
act approved by the Governor on March
3 1896. which act IL Is submitted. super
scdes and repeats parts Of the act which
mas been under consideration In these
eases: and We are asked TO consider the
Provisions OF the more recent act.
so far as these actions at law are
concerned. It is or course obvious that
the damages recovered were for acts
committed under the alleged authority OF
the act of 1895. and cannot he affected by
the provisions of the act OF 1896. even If
the inva''Gties OF the former act were
thereby remedied-a matter on which We
expressed no opinion
''The judgments Of the Circuit Court arc
affirmed"
a EfhIR'S NASTY ITIDE