The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1898-05-11
Dispensary is Saved.
The Supreme Court Reversed
Judge Simonton

Friends of the dispeosary are jubi
lao:. aud it's opponents are correspond
iogly sad The cause Of these difeTen
emotions is decision from the Suprem
Court of the Uoited States Tuesds,
10 the famous Vaudercook case.
The first news Of the decision va
the following telegram. received short
iy after noon:
washington. Msy 8. 1898
Governor W. a Ellerbe, Columbis
S. C
The Supreme Court ressrses Simon
ton 10 Vandercook case Knocks ou
the inspection of liquor brought 10 fo'
private use. Dispensary is on top
and you can suppress the blind tieers
and o. D men without further molessa.
tion by injunction. Congratulations
B R. TILLMAN
A reporter for The Register called
at the Attorney Generals Office to 10.
quire as to the effect Of the decision
| on the present Law. Judge Townsend
was in the office and expressed bim-
self as highly pleased. He said that
the main question involved was that
concerning the original package
ageuts
The decision does not permit Of
these agencies aoy longer. No foreign
liquor dealer can DOW store whiskey
in this State sod sell it out az the origi-
pal package people have been do
iog. Any foreiga 6rm can seod an
aeeot or drummer into this State aod
sell to any citizen for private use. but
cannot sell whiskey to be resold With
in the borders Of South Carolina. The
part of the Simonton decision eustsia-
ed makes no material difference with
the operation of the dispensary, for
is ouly effects RbiskeJ for private
use.
Mr.. Mancke closed as soon as be re-
ceived the news
By Associated Press The Register
has received the following condensa-
ton of the decision /:
Washington, May 9-Io the Uoited
States Supreme Court to-day the South
Carolina liquor law was again made
the subject Of a deoisi0o which was
handed down by .5ustice White The
State dispensary law having been
amended since the recent decisions
holding it invalid. .o-day's decision
deals With the new law This law at
tempted to eliminate the feature of
the old law discriminating against
other States in the shipment Of liqaor
TO individuals for their own use in
South Carolina. bat While this iohibl
ton was eliminated apd the privilege
restored in sbe rev Law it vas accom-
panied With conditions Of inspection
which it was claimed still amou"sed to
Discrimination The court in fo-dsy's
decision accepted this view of the
case. holding that the Inspection pre-
vision of the Law was tsntauouDs to
deoi.l Of the right of interstate CON-
merce and therefore anfagouistic to
the constitution Of the United States
The court held, however. that the por-
,ion CT the Law regulating the sale of
original packages within the State was
valid The decision was rendered 10
the case of Vance and Scott vs.. the
vaudercook Company of Cal1fornla.
The decision 10 the United States Cir
cult Court for South Carolina was 10
favor of the California company. The
op;pioo rendered to dag hal the effect
Of IF, mag this opinion iu part and
reversing it in part, and the case was
remanded With instructions to proceed
accordingly
Chief Justice Fuller sod Justices
Shiras and MeKenua disseuted as "a
the portion Of the opinion reversing
any part of the decision Of the court
below. They took the position that the
law 10 its entirety IS 10 violation o.
the constitution, and that the opinion
autagonlstio to it should be sustained
The court reversed the opinion o1
the circuit court for South Carolina il
the case dealing with the seizure G!
liquors shipped into South Carolina by
Vandercook g. Company. on the ground
that the court had no Jurisdiction
Senator Tillman. the author OF !he
dispensary Law, says that the part thai
is re'-".od by the Supreme Court viii
n Ut stfsct the workings OF toe law and
that the poiot sustained is sufficient
He hsd already secured the passage
of bill in the Senate to meet the OBJ
ieotions which the former decision
rendered invalid but says that it vii
not be necessary under the decision to-
day to have the bill pass the House.