The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1897-08-10
"0RIGINAL PACKAGE"
HAS BEEN DEFINED .Y JUDGE SIMON
TON.
shipments Loose In Cars Appear Allow
able, Hut State VIII Probably
Test Point.
Especial to tho State.

/
ci"ion in tho cases involving the con-
struction of an "original package"
in commerce whicL were argued bo-
fore him last week at Flat Rock,
N. O.
The decision, rs was generally OK
pected, is something of blow to the
dispensary, in that tho contentious
of Attorney General Barber were
not maintained save in one case.
The general Interpretation Of origi-
nal package stands, as understood by
many at the time Judge Simonton
decided that foreign dealers hed tho
right to sell liquors in original
packages within the State and that
so much of the dispensary act which
/ forbade such sales was unconstitu-
! tiona].
Judge Simonton constructs an
''original package" to moan the
package as it is handed to tho COM
mon carrier and delivered to tho
consignee. If tho box or barrel is
opened and bottles removed such box
or barrel ceases to be an original
package.
BY tho terms of the decision as
construed here, liquor houses will
have to ship their goods into tho
State in loose state, as was done
by the Guckenheimer & Sons, that
the bottles may DO sold individual
ly.
The decision is considered vic
tory for Guckonhoimor & Sons, rs
their agents did not have occa
sion to open barrels or boxes, tho
liquors being received in a loose
state.
The following is the full toxt of
tho decision:
The United States of America, Dis
trict Of South Carolina---In tho
| Circuit Court. Fourth Circuit. In
! Equity.
$. Guckenheimer & Sons, Va. w. w.
Sellers ct al. Charles NJ Pfeifor
d Co., VS.. Perry D. Gilreath ct al
Charles Nj. Pfeifor Il Co., vs. j. IT,
Moorhead ct al. The Portner
Brewing Co., vs. j. Il. Moorhoad
| ct al
Those four cases, differing some-
what in detail, have been heard to.
gether. They all present tho same
question, What is an original pack
ago? and before any of these can be
decided this question must be first
settled.
II has been established by decisions
which cannot now be questioned that
liquors imported into State arc
subject to the exercise of its police
power, whether brought in in orig
inal packages or other wise. And
that when the use of intoxicating H.
quors as n beverage has been forbid
den by State law as injurious to the
health, welfare or safety OF. the State,
no sale of such liquor can bo made
within that State, for such purposes,
by any one either resident or impor-
ter. 1t has further been established
by the decision of the supreme court
that the dispensary law of South
Carolina does not declare tho uso of
intoxicating liquors as beverage in
furious to the health, welfare and tho
salty Of tho State. That, on the
contrary, the State itself imports in
quantities and sells at profit intox-
eating liqurs for uso as beverage.
That the prohibition by the State, is
not the exercise of tho police power,
| Dut I'LL lllLoI l5fCllCo WIFI NIltt u Itpu-
lation of interstate commerce. That
under the Constitution OF tho United
States such interference and rogula,
ton are.void. But thopolice power bo,
1 gins when interstate commerce ends
! The imported article whom it comes
into State and becomes mingled
with tho other property of the State
becomes subject TO III infra state
commerce regulations. And il
South Carolina the State, in tho full
Y and lawful exercise of her police
i.power, has both in tho Constitution
and in the dispensary act, made sucl
} regulations which must be oboyod