Evening star., 1898-05-09
N THE SUPREME COURT
Decision on the South Carolina Liquor
Law.
Mr.. HIlman Says That the Point Sus-
tnfRed fs Suflicient-Westingh ghOuse
Brake Not InfrinSed.

In the United States Supreme Court to-
day the South Carolina liquor law was
again made the subject of decision, which
was handed down by Justice White. The
state dispensary law having been amend
ed since the recs 1t decisions holding it in
valid, today's decision deals with the new
law. This law attempted to eliminate the
features of the old law discriminating
against other states in the shipment of
liquor to individuals for their own use il
South Carolina, but while this inhibition
was eliminated ard the privilege restored
in the new law, it was coupled with con-
ditions of inspection which it was claimed
stin amounted to discrimination.
The court in today's decision accepted
this view of the case. holding that the in
spectiOn provision of the law was lanta-
mount to a denial of the right of interstate
commerce, and therefore antagonistic to
the Constitution of the United States.
The court held, however. that the portion
of law regulating the sale of original pack
ages within the state was valid. The deci-
sicn was rendered in the case of Vance and
Scott agt the Vandercook Company of
California. The decision in :he United
States circuit court for South Carolina was
in favor of the California company. The
opinion rendered today had the effect of
affirming this opinion in part AMI reversing
it in part and the case was r..manded with
instructions to proceed accordingly.
Chief Justice Fuller and justices Shiras
and Mckenna dssented as to the portion
of the opinion reversing any part or the
decision of the court below. They took the
position that the law in its entirety is in
violation of the Constitution, and that the
opinion antagonistic to 1t should be sus-
tained
The court reversed the opinion of the
circuit court for South Carolina in the
case dealing with the seizure Of liquors
shipped into South Carolina by Wander
he ground that the court
had no jurisdiction.
MIR. TiIIman'a Comment.
Senator Tillman, the author of the dis
pensary law, says that the part that is re-
jected by the Supreme Court will not affect
the workings of the law, and that the point
sustained is sufficient. He had already Sc
cured the passage of a bill in the Senate
to meet the objections which the former
decision rendered invalid, but says that II
will not be necessary under the decision to-
day to have the bill pass the House.
No infringement ON Westinghouse.
The Supreme Court decided the case of
the Boyden Power Brake Company agt
the Westinghouse Company, holding there
has been no infringement of the patent Of
the Westinghouse Company by the Boyden
Company
The court dismissed the case of H. ].
Haynor against the people of the state of
New York, involving the validity of the
state law prohibiting BARRIERS from prose-
cutting their avocation Sundays. The
dismissal ordered on the technical
ground that the writ Of error to this court
was granted by an associate justice Of the
state supreme court, where the case was
formerly heard. and not by the chief JUS
tice the entire court, the associate JUS
tice having no power to act. The opinion
was delivered by Justice White.
A case was decided involving grant of
land made in Northampton county, Pa, in
11G4 The suit was instituted by William
Dugaid Stewart and other heirs of William
Penn to recover land located in the town
of Easton. granted for court house pur-
poses. The suit was based on the claim
that the grant having been made for this
purpose only the land reverted to the dom
ors when the court house was removed.
ing it was the evident intention of the
granters to convey their entire interest in
the property.
The Iowa Liquor Law.
Justice White handed down the decision
of the court in the case of T. H. Rhodes,
plaintiff in error, VS.. the state Of Iowa.
The case involved the construction of the
state law of Iowa forbiddng the sale OF
liquors in the state, and making it a crime
to transport them, and dealt with the con-
struction OF the state law under the Will
son act of Congress, which. 1t was claim
ed would render the state law valid.
The opinion rendered today was that the
state law is an infringement of the consti-
tutional rrerogative of the United States
regarding interstate commerce, and that
Rhodes' act was part Of the act of ship
ment from one state TO another, and there
fore not subject to question.
Justices Gray. Harlan and Brown dissent
ed on the ground that the state law WIS
valid as police regulation.