The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-01-19
MAY IMPORT LIQUORS.
IMPORTANT DECISION IN REGARD
TO TINE DIsPENSARf Law.
Handed Down In the soprcmc'Conrt "f the
United states-Justice br"""s
Vigorous Dissent.


,.oo,.d IN nr,yen: a citizen OF the State
from importing into the commonwealth
liquors for his own use, Vas IN VOCATION
OF the Interstate commerce clause OF the
Federal Constitution, and, therefore nun
and void. The opinion of the court was
prepared by Justice Shiras. but, IN ms
absence. owing TO indisposition. its con-
o;usions were announced by Chiei justice
Fuller.
THE TEST CASE.
The case az par were DcSun III inc
Federal Court for South Carolina by JAS
Donald. "A citizen of that state, upon the
seizure OF case of California claio''
six bottles OF Maryland whisky. ana q
barrel of Rochester On. " beer by X
NJ Garden. Nj. Il. Holly, ST., h. i. Bcech'
and J. Nj. Scott. State constaDles acting
under the provisions Of the dispensary
law. directing the seizure OF all liquors in
the hands 81 any common carrier, agent
or priyate citizen not sold by the Sthc
whether imported or otherwise The ttidl
court gave Donald judgment Tor $Sp III
each case and the cOnstables appealed
The cases were argued last iall' the va
ldity Of the entire law being brought into
question.
The opinion OF the Court stated that
the proceedings were not suit against
fhe state (Which could not be brought
without consenO. and that the pleadinss
ana the record raised questions which
gave The Supreme Court OF the United
Srites Jurisdiction OF the whole subject.
The law was discussed at great length IN
the opinion and many authorities cited.
the result seing that the Judgment OF
the court below ia favor OF the owner
OF the liquors. Tor the reason that
the law was in contrayontion Of the
clause of the national Constitution, rcgu-
iating commerce between the states
was affirmed. The opinion CON
cedef that the Legislature Of the
State passed the law. in what IT be
power. and with no intention TO interfere
with the operation OF any Federal law
or to discriminate against the products
o. my other State: blir That Intention. 1t
continued. could not finally control the
determination OF the effect of the law
Mr.. Justice Brewer did not hear the
argument. and took no part I'm the de-
cision.
JUSTICE BROWN DISSENTS.
Mr.. Justice Brown recorded a vigorous
dissent. saying:
'''The effect OF the enactment OF the
Wilson law seems to me TO withdraw
intoxicating liquors from the operation OF
the commerce clause OF the Constitution,
and to permit the traffic In them TO be
regulated in such manner as the several
States In the exercise OF the police pow
ers. shall deem best for the general in
forests Of the public. The act Is not lin
tied in its operation. as the majority
opinion seems To assume. TO state laws
forbidding the importation. manufacture.
10 ,f ifpfnrCs lint declares that
they shall be subject. upon their arrival
within the State. 10 the operation Of all
its laws enacted I'm the exercise of its
police powers.
Now as Congress has expressly de-
clared, that such articles shall. upon
their arrival I'm the State. become sub
ject to it's laws. TO the same extent as III
they had been originally produced there
and as the dispensarv act does not de-
clare them contraband as imported
liquors. or because they were imported.
hut because they were not bought from
@ State officer authorized to sell the same.
and as the law makes no discrimination
in that particular between imported and
domestic liquors II is impossible for me
20 SEQ why Congress has not directly
authorized the action that was taken by
the State officers I'm Selling these liquors.
"But. at / understand the court bases.
20 certain extent its opinion of the
unconstitutionality Of this act upon the
fact that the traffic I'm intoxicating liquors
IS not absolutely prohibited. but Is mono
polized by the State itself through the
agency Of State commissioner
Granting that the act gives the State
itself a monopoly Of all the traffic in such
liquors IL Is not a monopoly in the or
binary odious sense OF the term,
where one individual or corporation is
given the right TO manufacture or trade.
which Is not open 10 others. hut mono
poly for the benefit of the whole people
of the State the profits of which, II any.
are enjoyed by the whole people: I'm short
monopoly in the same sense in which
the PostOffce Department and the right
TO carry the mails. Is a monopoly of tn,
Federal government
DELICATE QUESTION.
Quoting Chief Justices Marshall and
Waite upon the necessity and eNpediencY
OF the courts acting with great delicacy
and hesitation I'm declaring a statute
constitutional. Justice Brown cOnclud-
ed:
II regard these words as particularly
applied to the dealings Of this court 10
the proceedings of a State Legislature
and that their right to determine what is
for the rest interests Of their people
should be carefully respected. except
where IL comes I'm manifest conflict with
the dominant laws. Especially should
everything be avoided which carries the
suggestion Ct VeXatious interference
with State action. The manifest dangers
TO the future of thc country which Turk
in the inheXibility of the Federal Con-
stitution. can only be averted by care
fully distinguishing between such laws as
practically concern the inhabitants Of a
particular State only and are intended
bona fide for their welfare. and such as
are mere subterfuge for an unlawful
discrimination. and cannot be carried into
effect without doing palpablc injustice 10
citizens of other States. II AhOuld not be
overlooked IN this connection that the
complaints In this case cmanatc from a
citizen Of South Carolina. who seeks to
defy the law of his own State. and puts
forward as his excuse the injustice done
complaint OF her action in this particu-
lar. II a State cannot prohibit her own
citizens from importing liquors.. as well
as buying them at home the Wilson bill
Is set al naueht. and the prohibitory laws
of the several States regarded imperative
IN "A vital particular. The fact that these
liquors were imported for compliments
own use and consumption. instead OF FOR
sale. raises no question under the Fed
eral Constitution. Both are under the
ban OF the statute.
II am unable 10 see wherein that Sec