Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1897-07-14

law, both on the ground of the un'
constitutionality of the law, and be-
cause he was subject of the King Of
Italy, and was protected by treaty
stipulations.
The court decided the case on the
facts before it, but it expressly reserved
the question whether the act was not
void in such of its provisions as will
conflict with the interstate commerce
law.
In the case of Langford, it became
necessary to discuss some provisions oi
the dispensary law conflicting with in.
terstate commerce, and it was held
that in so far as such conflict existed,
the law was imperative and void.
These two decisions are unreversed
and are the law for this court.
In Donald vs. Scott, full discussion
of the relations between the dispensary
acts and the law of interstate commerce
was had and the decision was reached
that under the protection Of the inter
state commerce law, any resident OF
the state could, Notwithstanding the
dispensary acts, import liquors for bis
own use and consumption. This de.
cision has been sustained by the 81.
preme court of the United States in
Scott vs.. Donald.
In the Vandercock case recently
heard and decided in this court, fol.
lowing the supreme court in Scott vs.
Donald, it was held that producer Of
wines and other liquors in California
had a right to import and sell in this
state his products in original packages
No difference can be seen in princi.
pie between the right of producer, as
in the Vandercock case, and those OF
the complaint in this case. Both are
equally under the protection of the in
terstate commerce law. The conclu'
sion reached in this line of case is this
The state in the exercise of police
power can declare that the use of in.
toxicating liquors, of all kinds, as
beverage is noxious, and injurious to
the health, welfare and safety of the
people, and having so declared, car
forbid the manufacture, importation
and sale of such liquor within her
borders. That such prohibition takes
intoxicating liquors out of the category
of articles of commerce, and is not in
conflict with the interstate commere
law. But that 80 long as the state re-
cognized the use of intoxicating liquors
as beverage and encourages such use
by purchasing them in large quantities
and selling them for such use to the
inhabitants within her BORDERS accom-
panying such purchase and sale, with
a prohibition to others from doing the
like, this prohibition is not lawful
exercise of police power.
On the contrary, it is an attempt
under the guise of the police power to
secure for the state the benefits, profits
and emoluments of the liquor traffic
heretofore enjoyed by individual citi.
zens and 80 increase her revenue. And
for greater certainty in this behalf q
monopoly in this traffic is created in
the state. That the state cannot en-
gage in this business for this purpose
in contravention of the rights Of citi'
zens of the other states.
This being 80, and the right to import
and sell in original packages being es'
tablished, it necessarily follows that
there must exist a right to have q
place for the receipt and exposure fol
sale of the original package so import
ed. The use is the inevitable conse'
auence of the other.
But when this has been accomplished
the protection of the interstate COM
merce law ceases. This law protects
the original package in its importation
and in it's sale. The hours within
which the sale can be made, the per.
son to whom it can be made, and
quantity at one time to be sold and the
disposition after sale are within the
police power of the state.
The provisions of the dispensary acts
except in far so as they conflict with
the interstate commerce law, are abso'
lutely binding on all persons within
the state, so when once sale has been
made of an original package, and its
delivery within the state, it cannot
again be sold by its recipient or any
one else without violation of law. Nc
sale can be made of liquors, wines OF
beer of original packages anywhere
except between the hours by law ap,
pointed, 6 o'clock in the morning and
6 o'clock in the afternoon. No sales
can be made in such packages oi
liquors, wines or beer, to be drank on
the premises. None in quantities less
than half pint and none on Sunday
and none to minors or habitual drunk
ards.
These police provisions are irrevoka'
bly, fixed in the public policy and police
laws of the state, and must be observ'
ed by all persons, citizens or strangers
doing business within the boundaries
of the state.
With these notifications and re,
strictions, let an injunction issue as
prayed for in the bill.
CHARLES H. SIMoNToN,
Circuit Judge.