Birmingham state herald. (Birmingham, Ala.) 1895-1897, 1897-01-20
THAT IMPORTANT DECISION
Handed Down by Justice Shiras
Reviewed.
4eagtlsl Ht-a
81 u5 fss y
STATE POLICE POWERS
Brought Into Question, and the Dispensary
Act Declared in Conflict
WITH UNCLE SANS CONSTITUTION
The Act Is Not an Inspection Law-The
State as q Monopolist in Liquor
Traffic Is a Novel and In
tefesting Subject.

Washington, Jan. 19.-The full text of
the opinion 1.-THE case of the South Caro-
| lima dispensary law, delivered in the su-
preme court of the United States yester-
| day by Chief Justice Fuller, for Justice
| Shiras, was today available for exami-
nation. After having disposed of the
| question of jurisdiction Justice Shiras
says: s
I'VE are now brought to the more i'm
portart and difficult question whether
the so-called dispensary law of the state
| of South Carolina is, indeed as to some
or all of its parts, invalid, as being in
conflict with the constitution of the Unit
| ed States and acts of congress made
| hereunder. Is that statute lawful ex-
| ercise of the police power of the state ?"
"The difficulty is shown in the frequent
| and elaborate dissents in many of the
cases presenting similar questions. Still,
| 1t can be safely said that the differences
| of opinion thus manifested have not been
| so much upon fundamental principles, as
| upon questions of the construction and
meaning of the various state statutes
| that have been under consideration
THE evils attending the vice of in
| temperance in the use of spirituous
| liquors are so great that natural re-
| luctance is felt in appearing to interfere,
| law whose avowed purpose is to restrict
| or prevent the mischief. So long, howev-
| er, as state legislation continues to re-
| cogn1ze wines, beer, and spirituous
liquors as articles of lawful consumption
| and commerce, so long must continue
| the duty of the federal courts to afford
| to such use and commerce the same
measures of protection under the con-
| stitution and laws of the United States
| as Is given to other articles
eft iS iran M To
| statute before us does not purport to
prohibit either the importation, the
manufacture, the sale or the use of in
| toxlcating liquors. = = y Those
| operations are turned over to state func-
| tionaries, by whom alone, or under
whose direction they are to be carried
on -'fllTsg
Discussing the allegation that the law
| was an inspection law, Justice Shiras re-
| viewed the decisions of the court upon
| state inspection statutes to regulate 9TH
er articles and the opinion concluded:
In the light of these cases the act
! OF South Carolina of January e. 1895,
must, as to those of it's provisions which
affect the plaintiff in the present suit.
| stand condemned. st
1T is not an inspection law The pro-
hibit1on 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
VII lie purify OF lulpuflty OF the articles.
| Only the state functionaries are permit
| ted to import into the state, and thus cit
| liens who wish to use foreign wines and
| liquors are deprived of the exercise of
| their own Judgment and taste, in the
| selection of commodities. To empower a
! state chemist to pass upon what the law
| calls the alcoholic purity of such impor-
| tationS by chemical analysis can scarcely
| come within any definition of a reason
| able inspection law f
ic ,Af 1o
| 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 1T is not within the scope and
operation of the act of congress Of Au-
| gust, 1890. That law was not intended to
| confer upon any state the power to dis
| criminate injuriously against the prod
ucts of other states in articles whose
manufacture and use are not forbidden,
and which are therefore the subjects of
legitimate commerce. The question
whether given state law is a lawful ex-
ercise of the police power Is still open.
and must remain open, to this court
| Such law may forbid entirely the man
| ufacture and sale of intoxica ting liquors
and be valid.h Or 1t may provide equal
| regulations for the inspection and sale
| of all domestic and imported liquors and
| be valid. But the state control, under
| the congressional legislation referred to,
| eliminates between interstate and do
mestic commerce in commodities to make
and use which are admitted to be law
| full
1T was pressed on US in the argument
| that 1t is not competent for a state, in
the exercise of it's police power to mo-
nopolize the traffic in intoxica ting liquors
and thus put itself in competition with
the sense of the other states. This phase
of the subject Is novel and interesting.
w n ~ mo- for
now to consider 1t. 1t is sufficient for
the present cases to hold, as we do, that
when state recognizes the manufacture,
sale and use of Intoxicating liquors as
lawful. it cannot discriminate against the
bringing of such articles in, and import
ing them from other states; that such leg
islation is void as hindrance to inter-
state commerce and an unjust preference
of the products of the enacting state as
against similar products of the other
states.
There has been fled In the record a
suggestion by the attorney-general of the
state of South Carolina that, since the
trials of these cases in the court below,
there has been passed by the general as
sembly of that state further act. ap-
proved by the Governor on March 6, 1896
which act, 1T is submitted, supersedes and
repeals part of the act which has been
under consideration in these cases, and
we are asked to consider the provisions Of
the more recent act,
so far as these actions at law are
concerned IL lis, of course, obvious that
the damages recovered were for acts COM
mitted under the alleged authority of the
act of 1895, and cannot be affected by the
provisions of the act of 1896, even If the
fnvaliditiess of the, former act were there
by remediea.a matter on which we ex-
press no opinion. -
1.-THE judgments Of the circuit court are
affirmed"