The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1897-06-09
JUDGE SIMONTON,S OPINION
IN THE NOW FAMOUS ClSPENSARY
CASE.
Full Text OF the Opinion :n the csse that
knocked the Dispensary Law Our, which
WIN be Read With Interest.


WIN be Read with Interest.
Knowing the interest that IS taken
in The recent decision OF Judge Simon
ION declaring Inc DlspeuSsry law un.
CONSTITUTIONAL We present oeiow Lie
IuIl Text Of The oplnloh upon which
that decision was oaseo:
The United States OF America, Distrct OF
South CaroIina-ln the Circuit Court =
Fourth Clrcult-ln Equity.
The ". 4. Naniercock Company vs. ,. W.
Vance, ". \. Bahr, }. Vi. Scott, W. Llv-
iugston, C. 5. Moseley, VI. Peierman-
Slmouton, Circuit Judge.
Tnis Is 8 pill IN equity dled By complain
ant, 9 corporation o. the State OF California
against 5. ". Vance, who IS State cOnmlS-
sloner under the dlspensary Law, and W. y.
Bahr and others, WHO are State coustaoIes
appointed to put this Law II execution. Inc
plIl alleges that the complainant IS The OWL
er OF vineyards in the Stale OF CAlltornla, anu
mat 1t manufactured from grapes oi such
vineyards well known pure wines, prandles
and other liquors particularly OF ciafets'
rhine wine, uurgunuleS and champagne
That by us travelling agent the complainaul
look orders from Certain citizens ana resi-
uentS Of the State Of South Carolina to dellf-
er 10 each OF them certain original packages
ui wines, ETC., products OF us vineyards,
nlled SAID orders and shipped trom San
raancisco IN California TO Charleston, South
carolina, by rail, Carload OF Its products,
CONTAINING IS separate Original pacAaSes, Ior
each OF Its said customers, all marked With
It's name and address III Caltornla, adopting
this mode OF salpplng oy Carload IL Oroer "
obtain a large reduction II freight. Ihat
lne goods SO shipped arrived IL Charleston,
passing through the hands OF several COM
mon carriers III continuous route; and there
upon were seized without warrant oy de-
1eudanls Bahr and Scott, and oO OF the pack
ages were shlpped by SAID constaoleS 10 Co-
Iumbis to Jonn +. Gast0n, tnen State com
missioner, got into his nanoS and then into
the hands vi his successor, ). W. Vance.
with tuu notice Of The unlawful seizure ana
that Vance, Notwithstanding refuses to de-
liver them - com nplalnaat or Its agent, after
repeated demands and threatens 10 converl
and sell the same TO citizens OF South CaroI-
la. That these same cOnstables and others,
claiming like authority, threaten 10 seize IL
IKE manner, all wines shipped oy complain
ant into this STATE wherever found and for
whatever purpose shipped, arriving IN SAID
city Of Charleston, and IL Ike manner 10
ship and deliver the same 70 said 5. ".
Vance, who likewise threatens TO convert the
same, 70 the great damage OF complainant and
10 the obstruction aud destruction or Its law
lul business AMI interstate commerce and
trade ID its wines, etc., with cluzenS ana
residents OF South Carolina. The bill then
alleges the shipment OF another importation
OF wines, etc., IL separate originsl packages
from its vineyards II Calfornla, upon orders
from residents OF South C0rolus, the arrival
OF the same in South Carolina anu the wrong
Iul seizure OF the saue by State constaoIes.
That other orders have Deen obtained Tor
other residents OF South Carolina for separate
original packages and that upon such order
complainant proposes TO ship such packages
TO South Carolina IL due course os Interstate
commerce, and that IN the future II intends
TO seek similar orders ard 10 ship .hereupon
similar original packages into the State OF
South Carolina. The Dill further alleges
that IL intends IN the course OF its business
lurther and IN addition 10 such shipments so
ordered by customers IN advance, 10 ship
also from san Francisco, California, TO Its
agent IL the State OF South Carolina and 10
store and warehouse IN South Carolina anu
10 sell IN the State Of South Carolina, IL the
original, unbrokea packages as imported as
aforesaid, 10 residents OF South Carolina, its
wines and liquors, products OF Its vineyards
IN the due and lawful exercise OF It's rights
under the Constitution and laws
OF the United States. And that
the defendants threaten 10 seize,
lake and carry away, convert and sell all
such shipments. Inc bill then charges that
by the alspensary act OF 1897, under which
the defendants seek 10 Justify their action,
all wines, beers, ales, alcoholic ard other IN
Ioxicating liquors are the subjects OF lawful
manufaclure, barter, sale, export ana I'M
port In the State Of South Corolina, and
nave been and are being and Will continue
10 be lawfully used ana Consumed as u oev-
erage by ciuzens and residents OF the State
OF South Carolina. And that the products OF
its vlney ards are lawful subjects OF interstate
and foreign trade and commerce.
The bill then charges that The said dlspen-
sary law, insofar as II authorizes The acts OF
the defendants, or II any way attempts TO
abridge the right Of importation OF the pro-
ducts of compartments vineyards, into this
State aud there TO sell IN original packages
orln any wise hinoers and prevents It's IN
tercourse, commerce and trade with citizens
and residents OF South Carolina, ID the pro-
ducts ofits vineyards ID such original pack
ages, is IN conflict with the Constitution OF
the United STATES ana IS null and void
The bill then alleges facts sustaining the
jurisdiction OF this court and securing the
jurisdiction Of the United States supreme
court and prays temporary, 10 be toliowed
by 3 permanent lnJuDcuon.
Upon the filing Of the bili rule was is
sue0 against the defendants 10 show cause
not granted.
The return sets out three jurisdictional
exceptions. First, that the Dill presents no
Question arising under the Constitution and
laws OF the United States. Second, that the
bill is defective IN its allegations and does
not state a case coming Within the jurlsdlc-
ton OF this court. Third, that the Dill pre-
sents no case Tor the jurisdiction Of a court
OF equity as the plaintiff has plain, ade-
quate and complete remedy al law. The
bare inspection OF the bill shows these Objec-
lions 10 be untounded.
Inc return then addressed itself 10 the
merits. 1t sets out clearly that the ship
ments made by complainant were made by
bill OF ladlng to 3 gentleman IN This State, IL
tnIs behalf selected Us the agent OF complain
ant, TOR distribution ottne packages and per
haps the receipt OF the purchase money. 1t
then admits the main 1actS OF the Dill and
charges that the shipments made By com-
plaiuant and those contemplated by it and
Inc course OF dealing IN the future which it
intends, are in conlravention Of the act Of as
semoIy Of 1891, the amendment to the dis
peusary law. And that under that act, and
ane other acts which it amends, the course
and seton OF the State officials were justified
and were right and proper.
Ihis case brings up sQuarely the cues
t.iiAS 4 DrOiJIrer ~. oh.,l, 1,.,,o,y IN