Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-01-19
THEDISPENSARYLAW
SOUTH CsROLINA's FAMOUS STAT
UTE GIVEN A BLOW.
The SUPREME COURT AGAINST IT.
Decision to the Effect That Resi-
dent of the State Can Import
Liquor for His own Usc-Justice
Brown Dissents.


decided that the famous dispensary law Of
South Carolina, at least so far as it at
| tempted to prevent citizen OF the state
| from importing into the CommOnweal alth
liquors for his own use, was in violation
Of the interstate commerce clause OF the
Federal Constitution, and. therefore. null
and. void.
The opinion OF the court was prepared
| by Justice Shiras. but IN his absence,
owing TO indispOsition, its conclusions
were announced by Chief-Justice Fuller.
The cases at bar were begun in the
Federal Court for South Carolina by
James Donald, citizen Of that State,
upon the seizure of case Of California
claret, six bottles of Maryland whiskey,
and a barrel OF Rochester (N. " beer by
II. NJ. Garden. NJ. T. Holly, Sr., E. 7.
! Beech, and j. NJ. Scott. State constables,
acting under the PROVISIONS Of the dis
| pensary law, directing the seizure of all
! liquors in the hands OF any common car
rier, agent, or private citizen, not sold by
the State, whether imported or otherwise.
The trial court gave Donald Judgment Tor
$500 in each case. and the constaDles ap-
pealed. The cases we're argued last fan,
the validity OF the enUe law being
brought into question
The opinion Of the court states that the
proceedings were not suit against the
State (Which could not be brought with
out consenD, and that the pleadings ana
the record raised questions which gave
the Supreme Court of the United States
jurisdiction of the whole subject. The
law is discussed at great length I'm the
opinion, and many authorities are cited,
the result being that the judgment of the
court below in favor of the owner of the
liquors is affirmed with costs, for
the reason that the law Is in
contravention of the clause of the
National Constitution regulating com
merce between the States. The opin-
ion comedies that the Legislature OF the
State passed the law in what it believed
TO be the exercise of Its police power
and with no intention to interfere with
the operation of any Federal law, or to
discriminate against the products of any
other State. but that intention, it con-
tinues. could not finally control the deter
mination of the effect of the law
Mr. Justice Brewer did not hear the ar
gument, and took no part in the cecisioh'
Mr. Justice Brown recorded vigorous
dissent, saying:
DISSENTING OPINION.
"The effect of the enactment of the
Wilson law seems to me 10 Withdraw IN
toxicating liquors from the operation OIL
the commerce clause Of the Constitution
and to permit the traffic In them TO pe
regulated in such manner as the several
States in the exercise of their police
powers. shall deem best for the general
interests of the public. The act is not
limited I'm its operation as the majority
opinion seems 10 assume, TO state laws
forbidding the importation, manufactnre'
and sale Of such liquors. but declares that
they shall be subject, upon their arfiVal
within the state to the operation of an
it's laws enacted IN the exsfeise Of its
police powers.
Now, as Congress has expressly de-
clared that such articles shall upon
their arrival I'm the State, become SUD-
iect to its laws to the same extent as
if they had been originally produced
there and as the dlspensary act does
not declare them contraband as import
ed liquors. or because they were i'm
ported. but because they were not
bought from a State officer authorized
10 sell the same. and as the law makes
no discrimination in that particular be
tween imported and domestic liquors, II
is impossible for me TO see why Con-
gress has not directly authorized the ac-
ton that was taken by the State oihcefs
i'm sezng these liquors.
"But. as | understand. the court bases
TO a certain extent, its opinion OF the
unconstitutionality OF this act upon the
fact that the traffic In intoxicating Il
ouors. is not absolutely prohibited, but is
monopoized by the State itself, through
f..t.. tf-lsf flI
Granting that the act gives the State
itself a monopoly of all the traffic in
such liquors, it is not a monopoly in the
ordinary or odious sense of the term
where one Individual or corporation Is
given the right TO manufacture or trade
which is not open TO others, but
monopoly for the benefit of the whole
people of the State, the prohts OF when,
if any. are enjoyed by the whole people;
in short, a monopoly in the same sense
i'm which the Post-office Department
and the right to carry the mails are
monopoly of the Federal Government"
Quoting Chief Justices Marshall and
Waite upon the necessity and eXpen-
diency of the courts acting win deucacy
and hesitation in declaring a statute un-
constitutional, Justice Brown concludes
as follows:
STATE RIGHTS.
.T regard these words as particularly
annlicable TO the dealings of this court
with the proceedings of State Legis-
Iature. and that their right to deter
mine what is for the best interests OF
their people should be carefully respect
cd eXcept where it comes In manifest
conflict with the dominant laws. Espe-
cially should everything be avoided
which carries the suggestion or VeNa-
tious interference with state acuon.
,rhe manifest dangers TO the future OF
the country which lurk in the lnheAl-
bilitv of the Federal Constitution can
only be averted by carefully distinguish
iro between such laws as practically
concern the inhabitants OF the parucu-
lar state only and are intended bona
eda for their welfare. and such as are
a mere subterfuge for an unlawful DIS
crimination. and cannot be carried into
effect without doing palpable injustice
to citizens of other States.
"It should not be overlooked in this
connection that the complaints IN this
case emanate from q citizen OF South
Carolina. who seeks to defy the law
of his own State. and puts forward as
his excuse the injustice done the citi-
zens of other States. who make no COM
nlaint OF her action in this partcu-
lar If a state cannot prohibit her own
citizens from importing liquors, as well
ae buving them at home. the Wilson
hin Is set az naught. and the prohibi-
tory laws OF the several States become
inoperative in a vital particular. The
fact that these liquors were imported
for complainant's own use and consump-
tion instead Of for sale. raises no ques-
tion undeh the Federal Constitution. Both
are under the ban of the statute.
.I am unable to see wherein that
section of the dispensary act or South
Carolina, which authorized the seizure
made in this case, conflicts In any par
,icular with the Federal Constitution"