Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-09-06
STATE v. HoLLEYN1AN.

Supreme Court of South Carolina,
June 8, 1899.
a STATE LAW WHICH PERMITS a
PERSON TO HAVE LIQUOR PUR-
CHASED FROM a STATE DISPEN-
SARY, BUT PROHIBITS HIM
FROM HAVING LIQUOR INTEND
ED FOR PERSONAL USE PUR-
CHASED OUTSIDE Or THE STATE
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IN
COMMERCE.
Thd indictment in this case charged
that the defendants Ion the eleventh
day of December, y. D. 1896, with force
and arms, at Chesterfield in the csun
ty and State aforesaid, did unlawfully
handle and haul contraband spurious
liquors in the nighttime. against the
form of the statute in such case made
and provided. and against the peace
and dignity of the State"
The defendants lived near Lamar, in
Darlington county, about 10 miles from
Chesterfield c. II. On the 18th of De-
cember, 1896, they left their homes in
Darlington county and travelled by pri-
vatc conveyance to Hightowcrs distil-
lery in North Carolina, where they
purchased about u gallons OF corn
whiskey, which was put up in kegs and
jugs. The jugs and kegs were then
placed In the defendants buggies, and
they started back to their homes. Az
ter crossing the State line. and when
within about two miles of Chesterfield.
). C., during the nighttime, they were
arrested by State constable and his
posse. their liquor and teams seized.
and they placed in Jail. The liquor was
purchased for their personal use. UP
TO the time OF their arrest they had
done no act even tending to break the
continuity of the transportation, and
the liquor was seized while in transit.
upon they appealed
The court says:
The pivotal point In the case Is
whether the liquor was contraband
When seized as aforesaid. If the liquor,
When seized, came within the protection
guaranteed by the constitution Of the
United States 10 Interstate Commerce,
an statutory cnactments i'm South
Carolina uDon this subject were in
operative. Onr first inquiry. therefore.
VIII be whether 1t came within. this
protection. This will involve Il con-
Struction of the constitution of the
United States relative TO Interstate
Gommerce Hnd Uf the -st.rtut,.-cf-t
uhlted states commonly called the
Wilson Act"
"eGtiol.o ., art. 1, OF the constitution of
the United States provides that Con-
Gress shall have power to regulate
commerce with foreign nations, and
among the several States, and with the
Indian tribes. The Wilson Act" (2G
Start. 313) is as follows
That all fermented, distilled or other
Intoxicating liquors or liquids trans
ported into any State or territory. or
remaining therein for use. CONSUMPTION.
sale or storage therein shall, upon ar
rival in Such State or territory. be sub
Ject to the operation and effect Of the
laws OF such State or territory enacted
In the exercise of its police powers. to
the same extent and in the same man
ner as though such liquids or liouors
had been produced in such State or tor
litory, and shall not be EXEMPT there
from by reason of being introduced
therein. In original packages or other
In this case the defendants purchased
the liquor. and the delivery was made
TO them In person at the distillery in
North Carolina. This is not disputed.
Therefore we may eliminate from our
consideration two OF the elements of
Interstate Commerce, to-wit: the pur-
chnse OF the liquor and it's delivery.
This brings us to a consideration of
the principal element of Interstate
Commerce in this case, to-wit: the
TRANSPORTATION of the liquor. 1t would