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

WI '"'i ii''ii'idtlpitS Ill 'nC UcclSlDn OF
the court Of appeals in the ease Of
Flcischmamn against the dispcnSurv
commission, concerning the State lis.
pcnsary system, il has been suggest
cd that the courts might declare the
county diSpcnsary system unconstitu
tlonal, but an examination Of the de-
cision and of former decisions does
rot support that idea.
So far as the constitutionalitv of
the county dispcnsary system is, con-
cerncd it is undoubtedly on the same
footing as the old State dispcnsary
system. 1t is provided in the consti-
tuition Of the State that liquor shall
be sold in this State only by the State
or by parties licensed by The lcgisla-
turc, and no such thing aS Il 'county'
dispcnSarv is in reality possible.
Therefore in establishing a system to
be conducted by the counties it was
ncccssary to declare that the business
should be conducted in the name Of
The State. and that provision is in
The county diSpcnsary law.
But the supreme court Of The
United States has passed squarcly on
the conStitutionality of the State dis
pcnsary system, and in the cclcbrat-
ed ease Of Vandcrcook VS.. Vance, the
"orginal package" case, the federal
supreme court held that in its exer-
else of the police power thc State of
South Carolina has the right to mo-
nopoizc the sale Of whiskcy.
a year or more ago Mr.. G. Duncan
f'ellmgcr, formerly attorney general
was called on to settle Il dispute be-
tween two gentlemen of this city in
regard t" the effect Of the decision
OF the supreme court in the Wander
cook ease, and his conclusions are per-
haps the most succinct and exact
statement of the ease on record. Mr..
l'cllin"cr was entirely familiar with
the diSpcnsary law and its history,
having been attorney general when
the law was in litigation. and his
Findings IN this ease will be Of par
,lcular interest nj this time.
After reviewing the decision and
quoting l"rti"mS of it he said:
My conclusions are:
(a) That the court considered that
the complainant. in order to obtain
;hr prayer Of his bill. made three
contentious: fnSt. that there were
provisions in the dspcnsary act,
which. on their face, amount to dis
rnmnati"n, and therefore render The
acl void; second. that it was a vio-
latnn al 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
hld 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. arc unconstitutional.
This last is too marrow in it's pur-
pose to affect more than the 'partic-
nla. restrictions. but the court de-
clarcS that the first two contentious
g" I" the whole statute. and, there
tore, if well taken. render it void as
an entirety.
'tb) The court decides that if il
Is unconstitutional /" forbid the sale.
by private parties. Of Liquors i'm The
original packages il can only be be-
cause the act regulating the sale Of
hun"r generally is unconstitutional.
lnasmuch as by the act Of congress,
1880, 'thr restrictions and regulations
Of State laws become operative on the
original 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.
(c) The court argues and con-
rludcs ii 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. whichit self Gis
but the execution of power lawfully
vested in The legislature Of the Statc.'
(p. Al7.)
"(M While The court declared the
particular restrictions void, as re-
strictmg the free importation Of IL
quors for personal use. ii decides that
tho vicn 1ooc mol ovion1 :, tbn ,,.LoI -