The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1897-07-14
Dlspensary Funeral
JUDGE sIMoN9oN rem.
DERs A DECISION ON
ORIGINAL PACKAGES
And Makes tie lnjunction Perpetual
Original Package Stores ifust o.
seroe Dispensuy House and Regu'a-
tons.

sOHdEiSotVus oUty ~ S~e,S
ton rendered his decision in the case OF w
6. Moore against the State dispensary
officers involving the right of Moore's
agent to sell liquors, wines aud Beers 10
original packages. As was generally
expected Judge Simootcn decides that
nader his previous decision IN the
Vandercock case. Moore clearly has
The right to store his liquors within the
State, to offer them for sale and.to reg
ularly engage in the liquor business.
aud tie conssables are restrained from
interfering with his agents or trade as
long as be keeps within the lines LAID
down by the court.
Judge Simonton decides tba. SO
nuch Of The dispeOsary act as regulates
the opening aud closing Of the liquor
establishments, the restrictions against
selling 10 miuors aud habituai drunk
ards IS constitutional snd can be en-.
forced by the State officers.
The full text of the decision is as
follows
! The United States of America. District
of South Carolina III the Circuit
Coust Fourth Circuit LIN Equity.
Nv. G Moore. citizen aud resident OF
the State Of New York. VS.. W. N
Bahr. G. F. Glover. ". Livingston.
s. Duecan. J. j. Browning, Wn.
Schneider. E. Y. Baker aud j.
I E. Scott, citizens and residents Of
South Carolina. aud State consta-
bles.
The complainant. recti6sr Of liquor
and wtolessie liquor dealer 10 the city
of New York. Giles his bill agsinss the
defendants, zho are State conssables
appointed under the provisions
os the dispensary act. The facts
facts stated are that the complaint ship
ped TO Charleston by the Clyde Steam
ship company. an interstate coa nerce
carrier, certain liquors. wines aud
beers, products of other States, in orig
original packages to stored for the pur-'
poses Of sale inssuch origina! packages
ssby his agent 10 that behalf appointed
That tie defendants had entered The
premises aad had seized his goods aud
had interfered with the sale thereof
That they are hopelessly insolvent and
that he has no remedy at Law.
The bill prayed an injunction. Tie
return TO show cause, after setting up GER
tain objection to the jurisdiction admits
substantially the facts stated in the bill
and denies sbe right of the..com plaisant
10 import into this State. the wines,
LIQUORS and beer men toned 10 the CON
plant, or to store them therein or 60
sell them by his ageas as claimed by
him.
The jurisdiction Of shis court upon
tue facts stated 10 the bill seems clear
At she hearing it appeared that
there was no difference of opinion be-
tween counsel as to what constituted an
original package Aud it vas agreed
that the packages which we're stored
and offered for sale in this case were
Original packages.
Tie questions made were these:
Has a 0ealer, citizen Of a State other
than South Carolina, right to import
liquors. wines and beer in original
packages and to store them in this State
for purposes of sale ?
II this question be answered In the
affirmative, must such sales be conduct
ed under the restriction of time, quar-
stity aud persons made in the diepensary
Law
In Cantini vs.. Tillman. 81 Fed
Rep, 969. after full discussion aud cen
sideration i, vas held By this court that
the dispensary laS 10 its general provi.
sioss did not conflict with the Coussitu-
z.;sn CT the. Uoi,ed States. In that
case Cau.ioi, q wholesale and retail
dealer 10 liqaors. resident 10 Charles
ton claimed the right to cary on his
business. Notwithstanding the dispen-
sary Law, both on the ground Of the
uDcons,itu,ionality of the law aud be-
canse be was subject of the z:ng ef
italy aud was protected by treaty ssip-
uia.ions The court decided the case
on the facts before it. but it expressly
reserved the question whether the acs
vas not void 10 such Of It's pro
yisioos as were in conflict with the iu-
stase commerce law.
IA the case 10 re- Laug!crd, 81 Fed.
Rep. $50, it became necessary TO dis
cuss some provisions of the dis spensary
law conflicting vito interstate con-
merce. aud it was held that in SO far as
such confict existed. the Law was iu
operative aud void. These two aecis-
ions are unreversed and are the law for
this court. In Donald vs. Scott. 81
Fed Rep, 854, full discussion of the
relations between the dispeosasy acts
and the law Of interstate commerce was
had and the decision was reached that
nnder the protection of the interstate