The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-09-16
NOT AGAINST STATE
FEDERAL COURT DECIDES AGAINST
 DfsPENSARY COMMISSION.
The Opinion of Judge Pritchard in the South Carolina Dispensary Case is Sustained by
 Court of Appeala

Richm3ud, Sept. 15.---Deciding aaainst the South Carolina Dispensary Con- mission, the United States Circuit Court or Appeals handed down an opinion sustaining the opinion of Judge J. c. Pritchard of the Circuit Cout for the district of South Carolina. in the fa- nous case of Fieschmann Company and others against the South Carolina Dis- pensary Commission.
 Today's decision was written by Judge James E. Boyd of Greensboro, S. C., and concurred in by his asso. ciate, Judge Edmund waddill, and Chief Justice Fuller, of the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision Is voluminous one and holds that the proceeding is not a suit against the State and that the complainant Is not forbidden to maintain his action by the eleventh amendment of the Federal Constitution.
 It holds that the framers of that amendment rever conceived that a sov- ereign State could engage in the liquor business and become trader by buy ing and selling an article of common traffic in competition with the citizens of the country. Tbe court questioned therefore, whether the State was ex- ercising l governmental prerogative or performing a function necessarily or properly incident to it's autonomy as State. It declared that the fund In controversy. which the complainant claims it should be paid from, 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.
 The membsrs of the Commission. &C., cording to the court holds the funds in trust for the payment of all just debts of the State dispensary and the of ha dfgnenCarv FehaUa a property in the funds in the hands of the Commission to the extent that the debts are shown to he just and a ju- d'ciaI determination of the true amount of such debts can in no way affect the rights and interests of the State"
 The suit said the decision is not against the State. nor is the State an indispensable party.
 Treating the funds in the hands of the appellants as trust fund 1t adds, "snd the duties of the trustees being clearly defined, the trustor is not even a necessary party tn suit brought to compel the trustees to discharge their duties. Their position appears to he that the agents and representatives cf the del tor should constltute a tri- hunal absolute in It's character to ar bftrariiy pass upon what If anything Is due an alleged creditor and If r'aim he adjudRed invalid without fur ther opportunity for redress on the part of the creditor. To uphold such contention would be to deprive such a creditor of his property without due process of law"
 The court says regarding the Eiev- snth AmenAment: Undoubtedly the Eleventh An1end- ment was intended to prevent the Fed eral Court in suits prosecuted by the citizens of another State or citizens or subjects of a foreign State. from interfering with State in preservation of It's autonomy In maintaining it's own system of ssIf-suppert 80 long as such system is in harmony with the Constitution of the United States.
 ITO this end. therefore, the funds of officers or agents for rse In the admin istration of the governmental affairs of the State, are not to be affected by the process of the Federal Court nor can such court entertain Jurisdiction of an action which has for it's purpose the invasion of rights of the State to man age ana control its internal affairs or of an action which will obstruct the State authority or impair the State in- strumentalities in the discharge of le- gitimate functions in the maintenance of the States integrity"
 The court held that while the com- missioners. were empowered to inyesti- gate the transactions, they were not empowered to determine any issue of fact. enter any judgment. etc.
 Referring to the opinion of the Su- preme Court of South Carolina, that a suit against the Dispensary Commission was a suit against the State, today's decision refuses to adopt that construc- tion. Counsel for the Dispen sary Board asked for and were granted stay of mandate of forty days in which to pre- uenrap1-