The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1908-09-23
AGAINST THE STATE.
JUDGE PRITCHARD'S DECISION
UPHELD on APPEAL.
The Court Says the Dispensary Com
missioners Held DiSpensary Funds
rs Trustees for Creditors,

rs Trustees for Creditors.
The United States Circuit Cour
10. Appeals IL q decision haudet
> down at Richmond. Va, on Wednes
;. day sustained the opinion OF Ju1g.
j. c. Friichard, in the famous >1s,
of Fleischmann e. Co.. and other:
against the South Carolina dispen
sary commission. The opinion WIS
+, written by Judge James E. Boyd Of
Greensboro. y. c., and was concur
red in by his associates, Judge Ed.
mund Waddill and Chief Justice Full.
eT. The opinion consumes more than
5forty pages of closely typewriter
matter, great part Of which is de-
voted to a 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
| the 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 a writ of injunction, grant
ed by Federal court. Does this
case come within the limits present
ed? In this connection it is neces-
! sary to inquire if the State has any
| present interest in the fund in contTo-
versy. which can be divested, by
! judicial determination of the amount,
if any, justly due the complainant, or
has the State, by an act of legisla-
.urc, relinquished all right, if any
existed, to enough Of the fund to
pay all just debts of the State dis
! oensary. 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. y
In what capacity" asks the
court, are the members OF the COM
mission acting? Are they officers Of
the State of South Carolina or Off
GERS appointed under the act Of the
Legislature empowered to take pos
session Of a certain fund and direct
ed to administer such fund in Ger
tain 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 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
mination of the true amount of such
debts can in no way effect the rights
and interest of the State.
Having therefore determined tie
relation of the appellants to the
funds in controversy, we answer the
question propounded in the outset
hat this is not a suit against the
STATE. and that the complaint is not
'orbidden to maintain his action by
he eleventh amendment Of the con-
;titution OF the United States. This
suit is not against the State, nor IS
he State an indispensable party.
Treating the fund IN the hands OF
he appellants as trust fund, ana
he duties Of the trustees being clear
y defined, the trustees are not even
, necessary party to Sal, brought
% compel the trustees to dlscharge
heir duties. Their position appears
20 he that the agents and represen-
:atives OF the debtor should constl-
ute tribunal absolute in its charac-
er to arbitrarily pass upon What. i
,nvthing, is due an alleged creditor.
md. il claim be adjudged invalid,
without further opportunity for re
dress on the part Of the creditor
To uphold such contention would
,e to deprive such creditor OF his
oroperty without due process d
law
The court further announces tia
IN the conception and adoption OF the
eleventh amendment. it never en-
| tered the minds Of the fr"iHefs G
hat amendment that a soverelG::
State could engage in the hetor
business, and become trader D:
auvins and selling an article OF ctIn-
non traffic. in competition with the
..itizcns of the country. 1t ma! Hs
Questioned therefore. whether the
State of South Carolina was eSefc's'
! no y governmental! prerogatlve IL
,erforming a function necessarily o.
oroperiy incident TO its autonomy Il:
q State.
In reference to the provis!cns o
the eleventh amendment. Judge
| povd uses the following: 'Uudoupl
iadly the eleventh amendment was
intended 10 prevent the Fedora
court, in suits prosecuted by the ci.'
LIENS OF another State or citizens o.
| subjects of a foreign State. from
interfering with State iii the preser-
a+;on Of its autonomy, in maintaining
ire own system OF self-soverhMen1.
ca long as such system is IN mar
,,o,v with the constitution or IN
1-ri1ad States. To this end, thee
fore. the funds OF the STATE III -
treasury or held by its ofhcers OF
,oan1s for use in the adminis1ra'lch
,ho Governmental affairs OF th$
state are not 10 be affected DE 'ns
process of the Federal court, no: can
snc1; court entertain jurlsd'cf''a q
,r action which ~; :nr its rafios
,he ynyssion Q: RE rights sh'
e-otc to manage and control ITS II
FORMAL affairs. or OF IN action "aleL
will ohstruct the State autnorlsE o
impair the State instrumenfa''''sS II
the discharge OF legitimate 'o"o
rions in the maintalnarc& OIL ''!'