New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-01-19
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
SOUTH cARoLINAs DIsPENsARY LA"
DECLARED VOID IN PART.
TEXAS STATUTE UNcoNsTrTUrIoNAL-rw

rrx,s sr.rr-rE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
MORE WOMEN ADMITTED TO PRACTICE
Washington Ian ls-The Supreme Court OF the
United States to-day decided that the famous us
pensary law Of South Carolina at eas; so far as II
attempted 10 prevent citizen OF the STATE lrom I'M
porting into the Commonwealth liquors Tor MS own
use was In violation Of the Interstate Commerce
clause OF the Federal Constitution and therefore null
and void. The opinion OF the court was prepared oy
Justice Shiras but in his absence. owing 70 illness,
It's conclusions announced by Chief Justice fu-
Ter. The the bar were begun In the rederai
Court for South Carolina by James Donald citizen
OF that State upon the seizure OF case OF California
clare six bottles OF Maryland whiskey and barrel
OF Rochester beer by X. VI. Gardner NJ T. Ha.ly ST.
T. c. Beach and J. NJ Scott. State constables acting
under the provisions Of the Dspensary law directing
the seizure OF all liquors In the hands Of any common
carrier agent or private citizen. not sold by the
State agent, whether imported otherwise. The
trial gave judgment Donald for $500 in each
case. and the constables appealed. The cases were
argued last fall. the validity Of the entire law being
brought into question.
The opinion OF the court said that the proceedings
suit agans: the s ate (Which could not be
brought without its consenO and that the p.eadings
and the record raised questions which gave TO the
Supreme Court OF the United states Jurisdiction OF
length in the opinion and many authorities cited, the
result being that the judgment OF the court below in
favor Of the owner of the liquors was upheld for the
reason that the law was in contravention Of the
clause Of the National Constitution regulating
that the Legislature of the State passed the law in
what believed TO he the exercise OF Its police power
and with no intention 10 interfere with the operation
of any Federal Jaw 10 discriminate against the
products OF any other State. but that intention. 1t
Justice Brewer did no, hear the argument. and
s seot no part IN the decision Justice Brown dis
statute of the State Of Texas was to-day de-
cl ed he N OF he
XIVth Amendment TO the Constitution Of the
United States. The Legislature of Texas passed
law declaring that in actions brought against rail-
road corporations, whore the amounts involved did
not exceed $50. the plaintiffs should recover. In
addition to the found by the jury be due
10 them, SO. From the Judgment Of the State SUI
preme Court In proceeding Of this sort. the Cult,
to the Supreme Court of the United States. and
that Judgment was set aside the opinion being
rendered by Justice Brewer He said that the act
denied the equal protection of the law, creating.
it did. special class Of litigants. who alone
White dissented being Of the opinion that the ad:
donal sum provided for was In the e. nature n Of
ways been a creation OF statute.
An interesting ceremony witnessed In the
Supreme Court to-day in the presentation for ad-
mission to practise before the court Of two women
by sisters in the profession who had previously at
tanned unto that privilege. The half-dozen female
lawyers whose names had hitherto been added to
the roll of practising attorneys had been presented
the court by brothers at the bar and to-day for
the first time in It's history the court enrolled a
female attorney on the motion OF one Of her own
The candidates were Catherine II. Pier. OF
Milwaukee, wis. nominated by. her sister, Kate H
Pier. OF the city, and Alice A. Minick OF
Lincoln. who was vouched for by Beva A. Lock
wood, OF this city, IAN attorney for three years
before the Supreme Court Of Nebraska, and a per
of good moral character" Representatives
George Spaldng and J. r. Corliss. of Michigan.
also admitted to practice to-day
The call for tomorrow will be follows: Nos
ILL., 1872 r. $685. 6 $780, ST. sl5. 403 land 1885, and 104