Fort Mill times. [volume] (Fort Mill, S.C.) 1892-current, 1908-09-24

JUDGE PRITCHARD'S DECISION
UPHELD ON APPEAL.
The Court Says the Dispcnsary Com.
missioners Held Dispensary Funds
rs Trustees for Creditors.
rs Trustees fol

rs Trustees for Creditors
The United States Circuit Cour,
20! Appeals IN decision handed
down at Richmond. Va. on Wedues.
day sustained the opinion OF judge
j. {. Fritchard. in the famous rase
of Flcischmann & Co. and others
against the South Carolina dispen-
sery commission. The opinion wss
written by Judge James Z. BOYD. OF
Greensboro. y. c., and was concur
red in by his associates, Judge Ed
nund Waddill and Chief Justice Full
Ter. The opinion consumes more than
forty pages OF closely typewritten
matter. great part of which is de-
voted to statement OF the facts.
In the opinion. Judge Boyd states:
There are two main propositions.
the jurisdictional, which presents the
question whether this suit against
'he State of South Carolina. and there
fore forbidden by the eleventh
amendment and, second, whether
the dispensary commission is a court
incapable of having its proceedings
stayed by writ of injunction, grant
ed by n Federal court. Does this
case come within the limits present
ed? In this connection It is neces.
sary to inquire III the State has any
present interest III the fund in contro-
versy. which can bc divested, by q
judicial determination of the amount,
If any, justly due the complainant. or
has the State. by All act OF legisla-
,ure. relinquished all right. if any
existed. to enough of the fund to
pay all just debts of the State dis
pensary. The fund being in the
hands of the commission. charged
with the duty of abolishing the dis
pensary. the State has no interest in
so much thereof as is necessary to
pay the just debts"
In what capacity" asks the
court. are the members of the com
mission acting? Are they officers OF
he State OF South Carolina or Off
GERS appointed under tile act of the
Legislature empowered to take pos
session of a certain fund and direct
I'd to administer such fund in a GER
.ain manner?
I'VE are constrained to hold that
the funds in their hands are held in
trust for payment of the debts men
toned. that the creditors of the dis
pensary have Il property in the funds
in the hands of the commission to
the extent that the debts are shown
to be just. and that judicial deter
Inination OF the true amount of such
debts can i'll no way eject the rights
and interest of the State.
Having therefore determined the
relation OF the appellants to the
funds in controversy. we answer the
question propounded i'll the outset
that this is not n suit against the
state. and that the complaint is no,
forbidden to maintain his action by
the eleventh amendment of the con-
ititution of the United States. This
suit is not against the State. nor Is
he State an Indispensable party.
Treating the fund III the hands of
he appellants as a trust fund. and
the duties of the trustees being clear
ly defined. the trustees are not even
I necessary party 10 a Sc!t Drought
% compel the trustees TO discharge
,heir duties. Their position appears
% he that the agents and represent
,ativeS OF the debtor should consti.
;ute tribunal absolute in its charac.
ter to arbitrarily pass upon what. if
anything. is due an alleged creditor.
and. If claim be adjudged invalid
without further opportunity for re-
dress on the part of the creditor.
To uphold such contention would
he to deprive such a creditor of his
property without due process oi
law"
The court further announces that
III the conception and adoption oil the
eleventh amendment. 1t never en-
tered the minds of the frriGcrs o.
hat amendment that sovereign
state could engage in the liquor
business. and become a trader Ly
buying and selling an article OF com
mon traffic. in competition with the
citizens OF the country. 1t MAY be
questioned therefore. whether Tho
ing a governmental prerogativc in
performing function necessarily oI
properly incident to its autonomy. g:
State.
In reference to the provisions ol
the eleventh amendment, judge
Boyd uses the following: 'Undoubt
edly. the eleventh amendment wa'
intended to prevent the Fedora
court. in suits prosecuted by the Gill
zens of another State OF citizens o
subjects of a foreign STATE. fron
interfering with State ia the prcser
alton OF its autonomy, in maintainin.
its own system of self-governmcni
So long as such system is in har
lmony with the constitution OF th
limited States. To this end. thee
fore. the funds OF .fhe State in II
treasury or held by it's officers o
agents for use in tho administratiC
Iof the governmental affairs ot IA
state arc not 10 he affected by tb
process OF the Federal court. no" ca
such court entertain jurisdiction Z