The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1897-06-09

court of the act of 1895. This criticism was
not on these Determinations only. The
court says: In view OF these and similar
provisions, It is indlsputable that whatever
else may be said of this act. it was not in
| tended to prohibit the manufacture, sale
and use of alcoholic liquors. On the con-
trary, liquors and wines are recognized rs
commodities, which may be lawfully made,
bought and sold, and must, therefore, be
deemed the subject OF foreign aud interstate
commerce. Section = provides that the State
board OF control shall purchase all liquors
for sale in this State. Section 3, after pro-
vlding for the appointment OF a commission
er, proscribes how ne shall furnish liquors
TO the county dispensers for sale. Section :
provides for county dispensers who shall sell
liquors. Section - provides for granting
licenses to manufacture liquors. Section %
provides for regular quarterly report from
all licensed distilIers. These sections III the
act OF 1897 sustain the criticism OF the su-
| preme court. 1t is clear that before the
State can forbid the Importation and sale IN
| original packages Of alcoholic liquors, 1t
must declare the manufacture, sale and use
as beverage OF all alcoholic liquors to be
contraband and forbidden, aud SO take them
out OF the category of legitimate articles OF
commerce. Sue cannot Tor her own purpo-
ses treat these liquors as the subject Of for
eign and intersate commerce, and declares
| them not 10 be such 10 the rest Of the world.
| The appalling statistics Of misery, paUper-
ism and crime which have their origin and
owe their existence TO the use or abuse OF
alcoholic spirits, are the Justification for po-
lice regulations with regard to them and
keep tnem under the control of the
police power. Considerations of public
safety, the supreme laws override every
other, and measures, however drastic,
which prevent the existence OF this
evil, will be sanctioned and enforced.
But when the State herself for her own pur
poses furnishes to her citizens these alconol-
&c spirits, encourages them IN their Use, puts
them at convenient places within her terri
tory for the supply and Distribution ofthem,
| enters largely IL the business, calculating
the profit therefrom as aiding State, county
and municipal treasures, regulations which
would properly be attributable 10 the police
power II used IN suppression OF the traffic,
/ assume the form OF measures tending TO
support the States monopoly in the business,
act as restrictions upon commerce and in-
| fringes the Federal Constitution. Ii all a.
cohoIlc liquors, BY whomSoeyer held, are de-
clared contraoand, they cease 10 belong 10
commerce and are within tae jurisdiction OF
| the police power. But 50 long as their man
/ utacture, purchase or sale or their use as a
| beverage N any form or by any person are
recognized they belong to commerce, and
are without the domain OF the police power
The act Of 1897, like the act Of 1898, IS con-
derned on these principles. Neither Of them
are within exercise Of the police power.
But whilst 1t is true that some OF the dis
eliminating features are now removed from
the dispensary, features admitted TO be fatal
TO its constitulionality, one at least still re-
mains. The markets of this State are closed
TO the producers in other States. Mime
sofa VS.. Barber, l36 U. s., 326. They are
closed, ii is true, to the producers in this
State. But the latter may be under the con-
| troll of the laws OF commerce with the State.
rhe former are protected by the interstate
commerce law. It is no justification that
laws in conflict with interstate commerce
press equally on the citizen and the strang.
er. Minnesota vs.. Barber.
4 resident Of the State may under the
present dispensary law send his orders to
d producer outside Of the State for LIQUORS
| for his own personal use and consumption,
| and q limited importation within restrict
I ed period and under an absolute condition
is allowed such resident. The producer IS
limited to this. He cannot import his goods
into this State in any other way. The con-
dition for such importation is this: Any
| resident who desires to import liquor for his
own personal use and consumption, shall
| first certify to the chemist of the South Car
| oina college, the quantity and kind ofliquor
he wishes 10 purchase. Stating also that
snch proposed purchaser will forward to
Columbia, South Carolina, to said chemist, a
sample of the liquor. On receipt OF the
sample the chemist Immediately proceeds TO
test it and if found to be pure and free from
any poisonous, hurtful or deleterious matter,
ne issues certificate 10 that effect, giving
/ names of proposed consignor aud consignee
and the quantity and kind of liquor to be
imported, sends it free of expense and post
paid 10 the consignor, and the liquor can be
shipped within 80 days after the date Of the
| certificate, which can be used once only.
1t will be noted that the use of alcoholic
| liquors as beverage is not prohibited, nor
Is their importation for personal use forbid
I den, provided such beverages are free from
poisonous, hurtful and deleterious matter"
other than the alcohol in them.
The act provides the essential and conclu-
sive test on this point the certificate Of the
chemist Of the South Carolina college. The
/ act also declares all alcoholic liquors, not
/ tested by the chemist OF the South Carolina
College and so found to be free from poi
sonous, hurtful and deleterious matters"
necessarily matters other than the alcoholic
Ingredients, to be OF a detrimental character
| and their use and consumption TO be against
| the morals, good health and safety Of the
State. That is to ssy, without any regard
/ whatever TO their real character, the pres
ence or absence Of the certificate is the sole
/ test. This can be sustained only on the fact
| that it is a valid inspection law.
There can be no doubt that State can
enact laws protecting its citizens in the pur-
chase of articles, imported or domestic, from
purchasing something they did not intend
| to buy, or adulterated so as to threaten dis
ease or death. (Plumly VS.. Massachusetts,,
l55 L. s., 46l. But it must be a law which
| protects or at least tends 10 protect the cltI-
zen. 1t must give him security: il it does
! not DO so absolutely, still it must contribute
| to secure him.
The mode of inspection in this act isby
sample. Let it be supposed that the sam
pie has been furnished, has been inspected,
has been approved and that the certificate has
been sent TO the consignOr. What sort Of
assurance does it give the citizen that this
liquor he thereupon receives accords with,
comes up 10 or IL any wise resembles the
sample? What protection does it give the
citizen from fraud, from q failure TO send
! liquor according to sample? None whatever,
1t only subjects him to the seizure and for
feiture Of his goods, if perchauce they should
be inspected. The fraudulent seller is out
of reach. Upon what then must the citizen