The Atlanta constitution., 1898-05-16

lowing reasons:
First because although the features In
the prior act which were held to be dls-
criminatory have been eliminated from this
act, nevertheless there are, 1t was asserteo'
other provisions In the present act whlch
on their face amount to n diScrimlnalloii'
and therefore render the act void Second,
because as the act as at present drawn
created state officers and confers upon
them the power to buy all the liquor when
is to be sold in the state, and forblds me
sale OF any other liquor by any other per-
son, 1t IS therefore in violation OF the con.
stitutlon OF the United States to the extent
that it seeks to control or forbid the faie
In original packages OF all liquor shippeu
into South Carolina from other states
Third because, although the amended
statute recognizes the right Of RESIDENTS o.
other states to ship intoxicating liquors 10
the residents of South Carolina and tnelr
right to receive the same, tor their own
use. It, in reality. it was asserted, denies
such right. since Its exercise is subjected
to conditions which hamper and frustrat te
the same to such degree that they are
equivalent to a denial of the right itsef.
Mr.. Justice White in his statement of
the case, goes on to say that the two 1irst
contentious go to the whole statute anu
therefore, II we'll taken. render 1t void as
an entirety The third Is narrower in its
purport.
He lays down a few elementary PROPOSE
tons which he declares ought to be borne
In mind IN the consideration of this queS-
ton. He states these propositions in TINS
way:
(a) Beyond dispute the respective states
have plenary power to regulate the sale Of
intoxicating liquors within their borders
and the scope and extent of such reguia-
tons depend solely on the judgment OF the
laW-making power of the state, provided
always. they do not transcend the limits
Of state authority by invading rights which
are secured by the constitution OF the
United states. and provided further. that
the regulations as adopted do not operate
discrimination against the rights of resi-
dents or citizens OF otrer states of the
union
(b) Equally well established is the propo-
stion that the right to send liquors from
one state into another and the act OF send
ing the same is interstate commerce. the
regulation whereof has been committed by
the constitution of the United States to
congress- and, hence. that state !2"
which denies such a right, or substantially
intnrfcrcs or hampers the same. Is in con-
1iiCt with the constitution of the united
States
(c) II is also certain that the settled doe
trine is chat the power 10 ship merchandise
from one state into another carries VITA H..
as an incident. the right in lhe receiver or
the goods to sell them in the original pack
ages. any state regulation 10 the contrary
notwithstanding: that is 10 say, that the
goods received by interstate commerce 1e-
main under the shelter of the interstate
commerce clause of the constitution. until
by 4 sale in the original package they
have been conlming!ed with the general
mass Of 1rnOrrty IN he state.
Congress Has Recognized the Power.
Discussing this last proposition. Justice
White goes on to say that while gcneTi"ally
true. it is no longer applicable to intoXicat-
ing liquors. since congress- in the exercise
Of it's lawful authority. has recognized the
power of the several states to control the
incidental right of sale in the original pack
ages Of intoxicating liquors shipped into
one state from another, 50 as to enable the