Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1908-09-18
JUDGE PRITcHARD SUSTAINED.
State Loses Decision In Famous Dis
pensary Case.

penSaTy SdSS'
In an opinion handed down by the
circuit court Of appeals, last Tuesday
at Richmond, Va, Judge ]. c. Pritch-
ard Is sustained in his findings in the
now famous case of F1eischmann &
Company and others against the South
Carolina dispensary commission.
The opinion in this case was written
by Judge Jas. E Boyd, district judge
of Greensboro, N c., and concurred in
by his associates, District Judge Waddill
and Chief Justice Fuller. The opinion
is quite lengthy, consuming more than
forty pages Of closely typewriter mat
ter. A great part of this, however, Is
devoted to the statement Of facts.
In the opinion proper, Judge Boyd
says in part: There are two main
propositions; first, the jurisdictional,
which presents the question whether
this is a suit against the state of South
Carolina and therefore forbidden by
the eleventh amendment; and, second,
whether the dispensary commission Is
a court incapable Of having its pro-
ceedings stayed by writ Of injunc-
ton granted by Federal court. Does
this case come within the limits pre-
scribed? In this connection it becomes
necessary to inquire If the state has any
present interest in the fund in contro-
versy which can be divested by ju-
dicial determination Of the true amount,
IL any, justly due, the complainant, or
has the state by an act Of the legisla-
ture relinquished all right, If any ex-
listed, to enough Of the fund to pay all
the just debts Of the state dispensary?
1.-The proposition rests largely upon
the construction to he given the act OF
the South Carolina legislature Of Feb
ruary 16, 1907, providing for the ap-
pointment of a commission to wind up
the affairs of the state dispensary and
section Al Of another act abolishing
the state dispensary.
1.-The state through its Legislature, has
passed both the title and possession OF
the funds to the commission for the
purposes designated in the act. The
fund being in the hands of the commits
sion, charged with this duty, the state
has no interest in so much thereof, as
is necessary to pay the just debts. The
court cites the case Of the United
States against Planters Bank of Geor-
gia, % U. S., and many other decisions
sustaining this position, including the
case Of Gunter attorney general,
against Atlantic Coast Line railroad,
200 U. S. In what capacity, asks the
court, are the members Of the commits
sion acting. Are they officers Of the
state of South Carolina, or are they
agents appointed under an act Of the
legislature empowered to take posses
sion of a certain fund and directed to
administer such fund in a certain man
ner?
I'VE are constrained to hold that the
funds in their hands are held In trust
for the payment of the debts mention
ed and that creditors of the state dis
pensary have a property in the fund in
the hands of the commission to the ex-
tent that the debts are shown to be
Joint and that a judicial determination
of the true amount Of such debts can
in no way affect the rights and in
terests of the state.
Having therefore determined the
relation Of the appellants to the funds
in controversy, we answer the ques-
ton propounded in the outset that this
is not a suit against the state and that
the complainant is not forbidden to
maintain his action by the eleventh
amendment Of the constitution OF the
United States. Thus it is not against
the state nor is the state an indispens-
able party.
Treating the fund in the hands OF
the appellants as a trust fund and
the duties Of the trustees being clear
ly defined, the trustor is not even a
necessary party to suit brought to
compel the trustees to discharge their
duties. Their position appears to be
that the agents and representatives Of
the debtor should constitute tribunal
absolute in it's character to arbitrarily
pass upon what, If anything, is due an
alleged creditor and If a claim be ad-
judged invalid, to put an end to 1t
without further opportunity for re-
dress on the part Of the creditor. To
uphold such a contention would be to
deprive such a creditor of his property
without due process Of law"
The court further announces that in
the conception and adoption OF the
eleventh amendment 1t never entered
the minds of the trainers Of that
that a sovereign state
would engage in the liquor business
and become a trader by buying and
selling an article Of common traffic in
competition with the citizens Of the
country. It may be questioned, therefore,
whether the state Of South Carolina
was exercising a governmental prerog-
ative in performing a function neces-
SdTlly OF pEOpeIly lIClueil W ITO ou
tonomy as state.
In reference to the provisions Of the
eleventh amendment Judge Boyd uses
the following language:
Undoubtedly the eleventh amend
ment was intended to prevent the Fed
eral court, in suits prosecuted by citi-
zens Of another state or citizens or
subjects of a foreign state, from in
terfering with a state in the preser-
vation Of its autonomy in maintaining
it's own system Of self-govenment, 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 it's treasury or
held by it's officers or agents for use
in the administration Of governmental
affairs of the state, are not to be af-
fected by the process Of a Federal
court, nor can such court entertain
jurisdiction Of an action which has for
its purpose the invasion Of rights Of a