The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1898-05-13
News and Courier.)

washington, May 0.-lhe Ou-
preme Court today handed down its
decision in tho case of Vance, Bahr
ct al against tho w. A. Vundercook
Company, appealed from the Circuit
Court of South Carolina, and tho
effect Of that decision is that tho
validity of the dispensary law in it's
vitel parts is sustained. The dec.-
sion places tho South Carolina law
clearly within the police powers of
the State. Tho right of the State to
forbid the sale Of liquors in tho
original packages the Court holds to
be clear, and it regards the dispen-
sary law as merely voicing that right.
The opinion of the Court was de-
livered by Justice White. 1t aflirms
part Of the decision Of tho Court
below and reverses part. Chief JUS
tico Fuller and Justice Shiras and
McKenna dissented az 10 the portion
of the opinion reversing any part of
the opinion of the Court below, but
the other members of the Court
agreed with Justice White.
In his opinion Ju.ticc White re-
views at some length the decision Of
tho Court in tho cases of Scott
against Donald and explains that in
neither case was tho question raised
whether tho State could, without
violating tho Constitution, confer
upon certain officers and agents the
solo power to bny all liquors which
were to be sold in the State, end
allowing no other liquor to be sold.
He explained that tho present law,
while similar in general scope to that
passed upon in the former decisions,
was different in many particulars,
the clauses which had been found
under those former decisions to op-
crate as discriminating against cit
liens of other States having been
eliminated. Justice White set out
the three grounds upon which the
constitutionality Of tho law is denied
by the decision Of Judge Simonton,
and pointed out that two of these 90
to the very root Of the law itself,
while the third is narrower in it's
purport, only assailing rs uhconsti
tutional the particular restrictions
which tho State puts upon the rights
of persons Of another State to ship
to South Carolina, and of residents
Of that State to receive liquor for
their own use.
Upon this latter feature of the
case Judge Simonton Is upheld. The
Court is unanimous in affirming his
decision. But on tho other two
points, which go at tho very root OF
the law, Judge Simonton is reversed
and the law is upheld.
The language of Justice White in
summing up the Courts decision is
this:
"It follows from the foregoing that
the decree below rendered was vel
founded in SO far rs it restrained the
defendants from seizing tho prop
erty shipped into the State Of Soutl
Carolina on the orders of such resi-
dents for their own use, because sale
shipments had not beon made il
compliance with the regulations O
tho law Of South Carolina. But i
further follows that the decree bolov
was wrong in so far as it restrained
the State officers from lovying upor
the property of the complainant TO
the purpose of boing stored thcreir
in original packages and from inter
fering with such salos. These con
clusions require that the judgmen
below be affirmed in part and re
versod in part. This renders i
necessary to romano tho case to tn,
Govt below with instructions t.
enter n decree setting aside the in
junction and Diminishing tho bill t,
the extont above indicated and per
petuating the injunction only in s,
far as it is above pointed out, th'
whole in accordance with the views
heroinabove expressed, and it is 6,
ordered"
| The effent of this 1aois;on IN III a