The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1908-03-17

w NJ wv ''I''l 'i'tShl lllo tlt
State for sale and to monopolizc the
sale Of liquor within the State, was
finally established by the Judgment
Of this court in State VS.. Aiken, 42
S. e. 222, and subsequently by the
judgment Of The supreme court Of the
United States in Vandercock VS..
Vance, ITO U. S. 443.
II is nothing TO the purpose to say
the liquor trade should not have been
mad" an integral part Of the State
government. Tie fact IS it was SO
made. Whether as such part Of the
State government ii was a success or
Il disastrous failure is il question for
political discussion quite apart from
this controversy as to its legal sta
tl,s.
In the next place, it is to be OBJ
served the statutes nowhere give any
LEGAL remedy whatever to those who
sold liquor to the directors Of the
Stat" diSpcnSary and thereby became
creditors Of the State. Such ~cre,li-
tors were dependent entirely upon the
good faith Of the State to DISCHARGE
lis obligations.
This brings us to the pivotal pu,S-
ton: Has The State. in closing GU,
TN. department Of the government in
tn" form in which il Formerly exist.
ed. conferred by statute upon crrdi-
,,,- il, ,,.lI 4, $500. I'. a.
m'.,t and collection Of these debts
du" from the State, and by statute
set apart The public funds derived
From the disposition Of It's dispen-
SarN assets 10 be subject 10 seizure
and final disposition under judicial
ortrr?
The statutes and resolutions pass
"d hy the general assembly. which
immediately preceded the act provid-
lu% for Tia, appointment Of this COM
iH'~~l"n. ,h"w The persistent purpose
and W"i defined public policy TO
~" I" III" utmost the sovereign DOW
~ of ia" State in the Investigation Of
tl"s" charges and in srpIratiu" Just
from Fraudulent claims. The pre-
sumption il exceedingly strong
against Il Legislative intention to
suddenly abandon this purpose ana
policy and strip the State Of it's
sovereign right to decide for itself
What IN justice and faith it was call
ct ON I" do in respect to the claims
against it.
Thr statute Seems plain in itself,
but when viewed in the light of these
conditions. we Ito NOT see how a doubt
can remain that it is to be construct
as providing Il method Of safeguard
ing the rights Of the State, uncov-
"r1n" frauds against it and providing
Tor the aScrrlainmrnt. determination
and payment OF the true debt of the
state IN the premises. by the commits
sion VIII" were invested "itli full re-
*i'"n~lhility and discretion to the
accomplishment Of these ends, sub
Jrri I" n" interference except that
"t the general assembly Itself. With
this discretion lodged witt: u tn
the matter in its charge and Il suit
brought against it for any purpose
was. in effect, Il suit against the
State.
We are not careful to inquire
w'hethar The discretion as lodged in
the commission is II discretion of Il
,lutirlal or executive officer, for the
supreme court Of the United States
rests Ills conclusions that no court
can disturb the discretion with which
The State has invested its officers or
a"'nt> upon amy such distinction. But,
II The di,lincIion he essential. il hts
been held in numerous cases in this
state that the comfy board Of com
~miSsl"E%rS, Il board whose Siatu-
terry duty is to investigate and APP
il"\" Claims against t..t c&untv, in
performing thii duty, exercises 4
judicial function. This diSpcnsary
commission. though having only u
temporary existence. is charged with
precisely the same duty with re-
SiN>ct |" claims against the State on
account Of the d~ispcnSary; and by
PARITY Of reasoning their discretion is
n judicial discretion and their ac-
ton with respect to The validity of
The claims, judicial action: and so We
hold.
What State Rights Arc.
The State has 4 right to lay down