The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1908-09-22
LIOUOR LAW UNASSAILABLE.
The Highest Court In The Land
Upheld Old Dispensary Sys-
TEN.
News and Courier.

tue coulI VI aPped4S LII l41o Sfto0 VI
FleiSchmann against the dispen<ary
commission, concerning the State lis
pensary system, it has been suggest
ed that the courts might declare the
county dispensary system unconstita
tional, but an examination Of the de-
cision and Of former decisions does
rot support that idea.
So far as the constitutionality of
the county dispensary system is con-
cerned it is undoubtedly on the same
footing as the old State dispensary
system. It is provided in the constl-
tuition Of the State that liquor shall
be sold in this State only by the State
or by parties licensed by the legisla-
rure. and no such thing as 'county'
dispensarv is in reality possible.
Therefore in establishing a system to
be conducted by the counties it was
necessary to declare that the business
should be conducted III the name of
the State, and that provision is in
the county dispensary law.
But the supreme court Of the
United States has passed squarely on
the constitutionality Of the State dis
pensary system, and in the celebrat-
ed case Of Vandercook VS.. Vance, the
:"original package" case, the federal
supreme court held that in its exer-
else Of the police power the State Of
South Carolina has the right to mo-
nopolize the sale Of whiskey.
A year or more ago Mr.. 6. Duncan
Bellinger, formerly attorney general
was called on to settle a dispute be-
tween two gentlemen Of this city in
regard to the effect Of the decision
Of the supreme court in the Wander
cook case, and his conclusions are per-
haps the most succinct and exact
statement Of the case on record. Mr..
Belinger was entirely familiar with
the dispensary law and its history,
having been attorney general when
the lev was ir Litigation, and his
findings in this case will be Of par
ticular interest at this time.
After reviewing the decision and
quoting portions Of it he said:
my conclusions are:
"(a) That the court considered that
the complainant, in order to obtain
the prayer Of his bill, made three
contentious: first, that there were
provisions in the dispensary act,
which, on their face, amount to dis
elimination, and therefore render the
act void second, that it was vio-
lation of the constitution Of the Unit
ed States to confer upon State Off
GERS the power to buy all liquors
which are sold in the State and for
bid the sale, even in 'original pack
ages by any other person; third,
that particular restrictions in the act
imposed, as to importation Of liquors
for personal use, are unconstitutional.
This last is too marrow in its pur-
pose to affect more than the 'partic-
ular restrictions but the court de-
clares that the first two contentious
60 to the whole statute, and, there
fore, if we'll taken, render it void as
an entirety
"(b) The court decides that if it
is unconstitutional to forbid the sale,
by private parties, of liquors in the
original packages it can only be be-
cause the act regulating the sale of
liquor generally is unconstitutional,
inasmuch as by the act Of congress,
1880, 'the restrictions and regulations
of State laws become operative on the
package before the sale there
of, and therefore such packages can
not be sold if the State law forbids
the sale, or can be only so sold in
the manner and form prescribed by
the State regulations. J.
"(c) The court argues and con-
cludes it is not unconstitutional to
prevent the sale in original packages
by other than State officers, because
such prevention is the effect Of the IN
hibition Of the act, whiehit self is
but the execution Of power lawfully
vested in the legislature Of the State
(p. 49,
"(d) While the court declared the
particular restrictions void. as re-
q q