Birmingham state herald. (Birmingham, Ala.) 1895-1897, 1897-01-19
DENN|E'S D|SPENSARY LAW
Declared By Justice ShiraS to be
Unconstitutional.
IT Is NOW NULL AND VOID
As 1t Conflicts With the ntef = te Commerce
Clause of the cOp 2 lion.
JUSTICE BROWN REC5S IS A DISSENT
Says if the Decision q the Wilson Law
is Imperative = withdraws
Liquor From the Opera
tions of the Clause.

Washington, Jan. 1S.-The supreme
court of the United States today decided
that the famous dlspensary law of South
Carolina, at least so far as it attempted
to prevent citizen of the state from
importing into the commonwealth liquor
for his own use was in viola ton 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 feder-
al court for South Carolina by James
Donald, citizen of that state, upon the
seizure of a case of California claret, six
bottles of Maryland whisky and a barrel
of Rochester IN. Y.) beer, by S. M. Gard
ner, M. T. Holly, ST., E. c. Beach and
James M. Scott, state constables, acting
under the provisions of the dispensary
law directing the seizure of all the liquors
in the hands of any common carrier,
agent or private citizen, not sold by the
state agent, whether imported or other
wise. The trial court gave Donald judg-
ment for $500 in each case and the con-
stables appealed The cases were argued
last fall, the validity of the entire law
being brought into question. The opinion
of the court stated that the proceedings
were not a suit against the state (Which
could not be brought without its con-
senD, and that the pleadings of the
record raised questions which gave the
supreme court of the United States juris-
diction of the whole subject. The law
was discussed at great length in the
opinion and many of the authorities cited,
the result being that the judgment of the
court below in favor of the owner of the
liquors for the reason that the law was
in contravention of the clause of the ma
tional constitution regulating commerce
between the states. The opinion conced-
ed that the legislature of the state passed
the law in what 1t believed to be the ex-
ercise of it's police power and with no in
tention to interfere with the operation
of any federal law or to discriminate
against the products of any other state,
but that intention, 1t continued, could
not finally control the determination of
the effect of the law.
gument and took no part In the deci-
sion. Mr. Justice Brown recorded
vigorous dissent, saying: The ERECT OF
the enactment of the Wilson law seems to
me to withdraw intoxicating liquors from
the operation of the commerce clause or
the constitution, and to permit the traf-
fic in them to be regulated in such man
ner as the several states, in the exercise
of their police powers, snail deem pest
for the general interests of the public.
The act Is not limited in its operation,
as the majority opinion seems to assume,
the state laws forbidding the importa-
ton, manufacture and sale of such
liquors, but declares that they shall be
subject upon their arrival within the
state, to the operation of all Its laws en-
acted in the exercise of it's police powers.
Now, as congress has expressly de-
clared that such articles shall, upon their
arrival in the state, become subject to It's
laws, to the same extent as If they had
been originally produced there, and, as
the dispensary act does not declare them
contraband as imported liquors, or be-
cause they were imported, but because
they were not bought from state officer
authorized to sell the same, and as the
law makes no discrimination in that par
ticuiar between imported and domestic
liquors, it is impossible for me to see
why congress has not directly authorized
the action that was taken by the state
officers in seizing these liquors.
But, as I understand, the court bases,
to certain extent, it's opinion of the tn-
constitutionality of this act upon the fact
that the traffic in Intoxicating liquor is
not absolutely prohibited, but Is monop-
olized by the state itself, through the
agency of a state commissioner. ~
Granting that the act gives the state
itself monopoly of all the traffic in such
liquors, 1t is not monopoly in an ordin-t
ary 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 a monopoly for the
benefit of the whole people of the state
the profits of which, il any, are enjoyed
by the whole people; in short, monopoly
in the same sense in which the postoffice
department and the right to carry the
mails, is a monopoly of the federal gov
ernment.
Quoting Chief Justices Marshall and
Waite upon the necessity and expedf-
ency of the courts acting with great del
icacy and hesitation in declaring a stat
ute unconstitutional, Justice Brown con-
cluded:
"I regard these words as particularly
applicable to the dealings by this court
with the proceedings of a state legis-
lature, and that their right to determine
what is for the best interests of their
people should be carefully respected,
except where it comes in manifest con-
f1ict with the dominant laws. Especially
should everything be avoided which car
ries the suggestion of a vexatious inter-
ference with state action The mani
fest dangers to the future of the country
which lurke in the infiexibility of the
federal constitution, can only be averted
by carefully distinguishing between
such laws as concern the inhabitants
of a particular state, and tire in
tended bonafide for their welfare, and
such as are mere subterfuge for an
unlawful discrimination and cannot be
carried into effect without doing inpal-
pable injustice to citizens of other states.
1t should not be overlooked in this con-
nection that the complaints in this case
emanate from a citizen of South Caro-
lima, who seeks to defy the law of his
own state, and puts forward as his ex-
cuse the injustice done the citizens of
other states, who make no complaint of
her action in this particular. If state
cannot prohibit her own citizens from
importing liquors. as we'll as buying them
at home, the Wilson bill Is set at
Aaught, and the prohibitory laws of the
several states rendered imperative in
vital particular. The fact that these
liquors were imported for compla ainant's
own ,1se and consumption iustead of for