The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1901-07-10
REVENUE TAXES,
Covsrnor ard Attorney 0enaraI
Have IaitIssed prccsedings.
BEFORE s. COMMISSIONERS
Tha @ lsssion is Whether zha 'n>sT
raj Rsvenus Lsws Of the
U 8, Apply 20 our Dis

raj Rsvenua LsWs Of tre
U s. Apply 70 our Dis
psnsary System.
The Stste Of South Carolina, acting
through the governor and attorney gen
eral, have initiated proceedings bsfor:
the commissioner Of internal revenue
to test the question whether the State
can be legally required to take out
special tax stamps IS wholesale and re-
tail liquor dealers under their State
| dispensary laws, and has msds &C.
nsnd upon the commissioner for re,
| fund Of all snch taxes hitherto paid,
amounting to s. 9l6. While this sum
IS not large il is realize! that tks
principle at issue is Of great snd far
reaching Importance. The one question
involved is, whether the internal
revenue laws of the United States ap
ply to the diEpensarg system Of South
! Carolina SO as to entitle the collector to
demsnd the payment Of these taxes.
The entire dispensarY system OF South
Carolina is managed BY board of com
missiohers consisting Of three persons
selected by the State Legislature with
Columbia as It's headquarters. This
State dispensary distributes the sup.
plies to the county dispensaries and
these in turn are managed by county
| dispensers or agents, all being under
the bosrd Of State commissioners
Under the laW no liquor can be sold at
night nor to be drunk on the premises
| Of the disreosary. The liquors sold are
the property Of the State and the profits
accrue to the State. The salaries of all
| the officials Of the dispeusaries are fixed
by law and do not depend upon the
amount Of their sales.
In the brief filed with the commits:
sioner OF internal revenue on behalf OF
the State il is contended that there is
nothing in tie laws Of the United
States authorizing the collection Of in.
ternal revenue taxes which even in
pliedly, authorizes the imposition OF a
tax against State OF its Instrumental
tiles Of the State government would be
to that extent unconstitutional.
Itis contended further that the prop
erty of State and the means and in
strumentalities employed by it to carry
its laws into operation cannot be taxed
By the federal government and an
opinion of the late Judge Cooley on this
QUESTION is quoted. L. any internal
reuenue Law of the United States re-
quire the agents Of the State and coun-
ty 6ispensaries of South Carolina esch
to pay tax to the Uaited States before
beirg permitted to exercise the duties
Of their Office, it is contendsd that the
law is unconstitutional and void, in
this particular, because the taz which
it imposes is purely and simply a tax
upon the instrunentalities by which
the State, through its laws, seeks to
minimize the evils Of the liquor traffic
within its borders. The federal gov
ernment it is hsld cannot constitution
ally interfere with the administration
of these laws by requiring special tax
stamp to be paid by its officials IS q
| condition precedent to the exercise Of
their duties.
Commissioner Yelkes has the claim
for refund of taxes by the State Of
South Carolina under consideration,
but has rendered no opinion yet. While
It is true thst this dispensary system
| may be designated State sgenc7, and
| It's maintenance upheld as constitution
al under the police power resident IL
all sovereigaties, yet the commissioner
is inclined to the opinion that 1t IS not
such necessary State agency, or such e
neeoful function Of the Safe govern.
ment IS will exempt it from federal
taxation. There ars certain agccc'es
| absolutely essential to the life Of a
State, such as the msintenace Of courts,
executive ofcials, collection Of taxes
for the payment OF necessary Safe ex'
penses and it may De admitted that the
| national government can a. no time and
in no way, directly Or Indirectly, levy
tax upon these necessary State
agencies; otherwise the national gov
! erament might tax them out Of exist
epce. But, the government contends,
when the State performs wcrk and
sssuues direction Of an agency which
has been and can be performed by It's
citizens il their individual capacity, a
new aspt OF arises. If it's unconstitu-
tionsl to require the local agents en-
ployed under the dispensary system ct
South Carolina to pay the government
the sums required for retail and whole
ssls liquor dealers stamps, then this
same State and all other States, the
com missioner points out could take con-
troll not only Of the sale, but Of the
manufacture of vhiskey, beer aud to
bscco, aud if so then the question
would arise, could the government levy
any tax upon the products Of plants
under ard operated by the State and
used for these purposes? If SO, while
the States might thereby be able to pay
all of their governmental expenses the
general government, it is ssid would
lose an internsl revenue income Of some
$500, 600, 900 per year.
It is Understood that if the commits
sioner's decision is against the State,
az seems probsble, the case eventually
will 60 to the supreme court OF the
| United States.
Fifteen Killed by Lightning.
Crowded together in 8 little shsnty