The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1908-09-18

bunal absolute in it's character to
arbitrarily pass upon what, ifanything
is due an alleged CREDITOR and if Il
claim be adjudged invalid to put an
end to it without further opportunity
for redress on the part of the credi-
tor. TO uphold such a contention
would be to deprive such creditor
OF his property without due process
Of law.'
The State Liquor Dealer.
The court further announces that
'ln the conception and adoption of
the eleventh amendment it never
entered the minds Of the fra
mcrs Of the amendment that Il
sovereign State would engage in the
| liquor business and become Il trader
by buying and selling an article to
common traffic in competition with
the citizens of the country 1t may
be questioned, therefore, whether the
State Of South Carolina was cxcrcis-
ing governmental prcrogativc in
performing Il function necessarily or
properly incident to its autonomy as
rs Il State
In reference to the provisions of
the l1th amendment Judge Boyd uses
the following language:
Undoubtedly the l1th amendment
was intended to prevent the federal
court in suits prosecuted by citizens
OF another State or citizens or sub
jcctS of Il foreign State from inter-
fering with State in the process of
its autonomy. in maintaing it's own
system of self-govcrnment so long as
such system is in harmony with the
constitution of the United States. To
this end, therefore, the funds of the
State IN its treasury, or held by it's
officers or agents for use in the adj
mlniStration of the governmental af-
fairs III the State are not to be af-
fcctcd by the process of federal
court. nor can such court entertain
jurisdiction Of an action which has
for IFS purpose the invasion Of the
rights of thc State to manawe and
control It's internal affairs or of an
action which will obstruct the State
authority or impair The State inStru-
mcntaliticS in the discharge of lcgit-
innate functions in the maintenance
'of the States integrity TO be more
concise, the constitutional limitation
is to the effect that the courts of the
United States cannot entertain juriS-
diction in an action at the instance of
a citizen who seeks to recover as
against the State the property be-
longing TO the State. or the purpose
OF which is and the result Of which
would be. to disturb the legal and
orderly administration Of the States
internal governmental affairs by its
duly appointed officers and agents."
The Commission not a Court.
AS to whether or moi the dispen-
Sary commission is court is briefly
considered. Judge Boyd cites the
constitution Of the State Of South
Carolina, providing for the establish
ment Of the different courts of the
State, the court holding that while
1t Is true that the commissioners
were empowered to investigate the
transactions connected with manage
mcnt and control Of the State dis
pensary before its abolishment, they
were not empowered to determine
any issue of fact, enter any .judg-
ment or conclude any party that
might be investigated as to any right
or interest involved.
Judge Boyd then refers to the opin-
ION OF the supreme court Of South
Carolina deciding that a suit against
the dispcnsary commission was suit
against the State. "Thc South Car
olina supreme COURT says the Judge, !
lis entitled to and has our most pro-
found respect, but we do not feel en-
titled to adopt the construction given ::
by that tribunal to the statute Of
South Carolina. The law governing ,
us Is well settled in the ease Of Bur !
CESS vs.. Sclieman, l07, United States. :
1t IS our conclusion, therefore, that
the conclusion of the circuit court !
For the district Of South Carolina ap-
pealed from should. be aflirmcd.'
1t will be seen from this that Judge |
Pritchard has been affirmed in every |
particular.