The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1897-06-08

ih'of-ctato state
Cannot Forbid the Sale of Liquor
i'm 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
MERGE law He has issued an Injunction
restraining the State Of South Carolina
from Selling liquor imported and offer
ed for sale. The State may sell liouor.
but 1T must do SO in competition with
other parties. II can no longer hold
for itself u 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. VI. S. w.
Vance, w. N. Bahr, J.. NJ. Scott, w.
Livingston, G. S. Moseley, d. w. Pc.
terman.
Any State may in the exercise of the
police power declare that the m~anufac-
ture, sale, barter aud 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 Il State recognizes aud ap-
proves tho manufacture, sale, barter
and exchange aud tho use as Il bever-
age Of alcoholic liquors, and the State
ltseli encourages tue manufacture, en-
cages In the sale OF ana provides for
the consumption Of alcoholic liza uors as
a. beverage, and soiiprccludes the idea
that such manufacture, sale, barter,
nSrhlnJn mr. nAn nI-n pinrinh, 4 ~ thn
public welfare, it IL not within the po-
lice power to forbid the Importation OF
| such liquors or their sale in original
packages for personal use and con
SUMPTION. C prohibition under
such circumstances is in conflict With
the laws of Interstate and foreign
commerce.
The dispensary act Of 1896, as amend
ed by act OF 1897. inasmuch as they APP.
prove the purchase and manufacture
OF alcoholic liquors for the State and
provide for the sale Of such alcoholic
liquors as a beverage in aid OF the
hnanc OF the State. in SO far rs they
forbid the Importation Of alcoholic
liquors in original packages for such
use in this State, are in conflict with
the laws OF interstate and foreign com
mcrce, and are, therefore, to that ex
tent void.
We add the concluding words o.
Judge Simonton, that our readers ma,
sec the effect of the decision
1T Will be noted that the use Of alec
holic liquors as a beverage Is not pro
hibited nor is their importion for per
sonal use forbidden, provided suct
beverages are free from poisonous
h~urtfuiiand deleterious matter" Other
han the alcohol in them.
The act provides the essential ant
conclusive test on this point, the cert.
ficate Of the chemist Of the South Caro-
lima College. The act also declares al
alcoholic liquors, not tested by tn,
chemist of the South Carolina Collcg,
and so found to- be free "from poison
GUS, hurtful and deleterious matters
necessarily matters other than ALEC
holtc ingredients. to be of q detrimen
tai character and their use aud con
sumption to be against the morals
good health and safety of the State
That is to say, without regard what
ever to their real character, the pres
ence or absence Of the certificate is tn,
sole test. This can be sustained oni,
on the fact that it is a valid inspection
law.
There can be no doubt that a Stat,
can enact laws protecting its ciJiZ n
in the purchase OF articles, importe,
or domestic, from purchasing some
thing they did not intend tt buy, o
adulterated so as to threaten dieeas,
or death. (Plumley vs.. Massachusetts
100 u. $. 46l.) But it must oe a Law
WHICH protects or at least tends T.
protect the citizen. 1t must give hin
security, if it does not 40 so absolute
ly, still it must contribute to secur,
him.
The mode OF inspection in this nc
Is by samples. Let it be supposed tina
the sample has been furnished, ha
been inspected, has been approved an,
that the certificate has been sen: Il
the consignOr. What sort Of assuranc,
does it give the citizen that this liouo
he ~thercupon receives, accOrus with
IN up TO or in any wise resemble
the sample. What protection does i
give the citizen from frau e., from
failure to send liquor aaccording t,
sample. None whatever. 1t only sub
jects him to the seizure and forfcitur,
OF his goods, If %pcrchance they shout,
DO inspected. The fraudulent seller j
out of reach. Upon what then mus
the citizen rely? He can only rel,
upon the business character, standin.
and Integrity of the person from whom
he buys, without any regard wnatcve,
to the inspection.
This s%o-rallcd inspection, furnish
ing no security to the citizen, cunno
thereby DC justified. 1t can operat,
only as a restriction upon, hindranc,
and burden to his acknowledged RICH
to import for his personal use. 1t il
thus an interference with intcr-Stat,
commerce and in itself void.
The language in Mugler VS.. Kansas
l23 U. S. 623, has some application
here. IF "a statute purporting to hav,
been enacted to protect the publ,
health, the public morals or the publi,
safety, has no.real or substantial re
lation to these objects, or is a palpablt
invasion OF rights secured by the fun
damental law, 1T is the duty of tn,
court to abridge them and thereb,
give effect to the constitution"
The same mode OF inspection by sam
pie would seem to be used in all the
liquors issued by the State commits
siOner, (22 Statutes 541.)
In Scott vs.. Donald, the Suprem.
Court, discussing II similar feature ia
the act Of 1905, says: "TO &
state chemist to pass upon what the
law calls the alcoholic purity OF such
lmportat'ons by chemical analyses
can scarcely come within any dclini
ton OF a reasonable inspection law
If then this mode OF inspection be not
reasonable and be futile, it is "a burden
on inter State commerce and in itselI
makes the provision void. Railroad
Co. vs.. Husen, 90 u. S., 465; Walling
vs.. Michigan, ll6 u. S., 446: Minnesota