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

commerce or prescribe any regulation there
OF without the consent OF congress. MhlI
by virtue OF us jurlsdicuon over persons au'
pr0perly within It's hints 9 State may pro
vide Tor the security OF the lives
nlubs, and comfort of persons and tn
protection OF property SO situated, Yet SUD
Iect matter wnicn has Ceen conhdcd eXclu
slvely 10 congress by the Constitution, Is no
within the jurisdiction OF the poIlce powe
Of the State unIess placed there oy congreS
,ioraI action. ltienderson VS.. Mayor .
New YORK, 81 |. 5. 259 Railroad Company
IS. Husen, 80 I. 5, 400: Waiting vs. Nichl
-an. lI6 L. s., 400; koooius vs. shelby, ~
I. s, 4S9,j
.Inasmuch as interstate commerce, con
sisting IN the transportation, purchase, sale
and exchange OF commodities Is national II
It's character and must De governed by uni
form system, so long as congress does no
pass any law TO regulate II or allows tn
state TO do SO, 1t thereby indicates It's VII
that sucn commerce shall oe free and untram
meIed. County OF Mobile VS.. hlmoall, IU:
u. S, 90; Brown vs.. Houston, liz l. ).
622; Wabash &c. Railway vs.. Illinois, lis y
:, o57.
The application of this doctrine to n,
effect OF State Legislation upon the lmports
tion of alcoholic liquors into u State, casne u
for discussion and decision IN Lelsy vs.. Har
din, i35 L. s, 100 That case arose undel
the promotion laws OF iowa, Section Io2;
Of the code OF Iowa provided: No person
snail manufacture or sell by himself, CLERK o.
steward or agent, directly or indirectly, any
Intoxicating hqaors except as hereinafter
provided. Ana the keeping otintc1lcaIng OF
liquor with intent upon the part OF the ownei
tncreof or any person acting under mis- au
thorlty or By MS permission 10 sell the SAME
within this state, contrary TO the provisions
ot this chapter, Is hereby prohibited aAd tnt
intoxicating Equor so Kept, together Will
the vessels ii which it Is contained, IS de
clared nuisance anu shall be forfeited anu
dealt with as hereinafter provided.
Chapter II OF acts Of 1882 OF lows pro
vided: That after this act takes effect nc
person shall manufacture for sale, sell, keeI
lor sale, give away, exchange, barter or dis
pense any intoxicating liquor for any person
whatever, otherwise tnan Is provided IN this
act. Persons holding permits IS herein pro-
SIded shall be authorized to sell and dis
pense Intoxicating liquors for pharmaceuu
cal aud medicinal purposes, and alcohol toI
specified chemical purposes and wine foi
,acrImental purposes, but for no other pur'
poses whatever.
Inc act then provides for the issue of per,
mits for this purpose by tue district court CT
the county, which permits hold good for one
year.
These provisions being in full force, Leisy
4 Co., brewers in Peoria, Illinois, Skipped
into Iowa oy rail TO heokuk, sundry barrels
OF beer IN original packages, and sold and
offered for sale IL heokuk, only IN unbroken
original packages this beer. Thereupon il
wss seized anu held subject to the laws Of
Iowa above quoted. The cause went up
through the several State courts into the
supreme court OF the United States. BY that
court the case was held under deliberation
and nnalIy the opinion was pronounced by
the chief justice rs the organ Of the court.
The points TO be decided are thus put: Tina,
ardeat spirits, distilled liquors, ale and bee,
are subjects Of exchange, barter and traffic
ike any other commodity IN which righl
Of trathc exists and are so recognized by the
usage Of the commercial world, the laws OF
not denied. Being thus articles Of commerce,
can State in the absence of legislation on
the part of congress prohibit their importa-
ton from abroad or from sister State OF
when imported prohibit their sales by the
importer"
In answering these questions the court
goes into full and elaborate examination o.
al the authorities, the conclusion is ex'
pressed in these words: The plaintiffs in
error are citizens OF Illinois, are not pharma'
cists and have no permit (the prerequisites
OF the Iowa act ''out import beer into Iowa
which they sell in original packages. Under
our decision in Bowman VS.. Chicago, supra,
they had the right to import the beer into
that State and in the view we have expressed
they had the right to sell it, by which &C,
alone 1t twould become mingled in the common
mass Of property within the State. Up to
that point of time We hold that in the ab
sence Of congressional PERMISSION to 90 so,
the State hai no power to interfere by seizure
or any other action in prohibition Of importa,
ton and sale by the foreign or nonresident
importer.
Upon the publication ofthis opinion, the
congress recognizing its force, enacted the
act of August S.h, 1890, commonly known
as the Wilson act. The act is in these
words:
That all fermented, distilled or Of intox-
icating liquors or liquids, transported into
any State or territory or remaining therein
for use, consumption, sale or storage therein
shall upon arrival in such State or territory
oe subject to the operation and effect Of the
laws of such State or territory, enacted in
the exercise Of its police powers, to The same
extent and in the same manner as though
such liquids or liquors had been produced
in such State or territory, and shall not De
exempt therefrom by reason Of being intro,
ducec therein in original packages or other,
wise"
The case OF Leisy VS.. Hardin is discussed
in PIumly VS.. Massachusetts,, l55 U. s,
642, and in Everett VS.. Missouri, l56 U. S,
81, in which case also the sct Of 1890 is
mentioned
The controlling question in the case before
Us is: How does the Wilson act affect the
South Carolina statute? In the recent case
OF Scott vs.. Donald, los U. s., IS, 8 case
from this circuit under the dispensary law,
as II stood before the passage OF the present
act, the supreme court discuss the dispen'
sary law, and condemned it. They hold thal
the Wilson act did not protect It.
This case Of Donald vs.. Scott was brought
because of the seizure and confscation o,
certain alcoholic liquors, products Of other
States, imported by the plaintiff for his per.
Sonal use. The conclusion OF the supreme
court, after full discussion OF al the cases
bearing upon the question, is: In the ligh1
of these cases the act of South Carolina
January 2, 1885, ldispensary law, must u:
TO those OF It's provisions which affect the
plaintiff in the present suits be condemned. .
los I, s., SO.
This act OF 1895 was amended in 1896
and when this decision was published ths
law was further amended in 1897, and thi:
case will turn on these amendments.
Have the amendments cured the object
ionable features in the act Of ls95? IN Don