The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1908-04-01
Dispensars situation.

Columtia, March 25.--Thcre wa.
mucn speculation today as to. the ef.
fe't ON the South Carolina d,spensary
case of the decision of the United
States supreme court, published to-
day, in the North Carolina and Mn.
nesota rate cases. The attorney gem
eral was not in the city today and his
view Of the matter could not be OBJ
tanned. While the cases which went
ur from North Carblina and Minne-
sofa are different in several RESPECTS
from the South Carolina case now
pending before Judge Pritchard, It Is
evident that the decision of the feder.
al supreme court IN the>, cases dig.
plays tendency Of that court to
broaden the powers OF the federal ju.
dietary and to disregard the matter r
OF States rights. The protesting mi
nority opinion of Judge Harlan brings
out that fact very clearly. IT is also
most likely that whatever the legal ef-
feet OF the decision may &c, -he ,ncral
effect Is not going to be a>oraole f..
the position assumed by the ATTORNEYS
for the State, AMI it Is not now con
slider likely thst Judge Pritohai d
will rscede from his position. Tho
motion to vacate his orders is to h.
argued before him at Ashev,ile on the
9th instant and his iec's.on cn the
motion may be expected without de-
lay as the other matters involved are
to be argued within a ta'v de- VS. follow
inging this hearing IL the orders are
10 stand.
Counsel for the State have already
info rmea Judge Pr:tchar that IL he
does not vacate his orders they will
advise the dispensary commission, OF
what Is left Of the commission, to
obey the mandate OF the State SUI
prone curt, al not tha: "f tn" fed.
eral circuit cocrt, In winch case the
members Of the commission will place
themselves in contempt of Judge
Pritchard's court, and If the proceed
ure in the Minnesota case is followed
the attorneys may themselves be in
contempt, as the attorney general was
In that case ruled for contempt of
the federal court because OF his hav-
Ing instituted in the state court a
mandamus proce ,ding to compel OF!
GERS Of the State to vi ,late the orders
CT the federal court Attorney Gen
eral Lyon has taken much .he same
position in this case.
OF course. the fundamental question
Is whether % not thee federal cour,
has jurisdiction at all, ami the con: IN.
ton of the St.te Cf South Carolina Is
that the federal court has not juris-
diction on the ground that the ac-
ticns instituted by the whiskeye houses
are sui:s against the State On this
same ground Justice Harlan protested
against the decision of the majority
in these other cases.
Another point If difference is that
the act of the legislature in the South
Carolina case has been construed by
the State supreme court. and it is held
the feIaral supreme court fellows the
decisions Of the state supreme courts
in construction of State laws, whereas
in these cases from North Carolina
and Minnesota tie cases did not go
before the State supreme courts, but
before inferior State tribunals.
1t Is also generally recognized that
while the decisions published today
indicate the supreme courts tendency
to get away from the doctrine of
States rights. that tendency Will be
still further emphasized If the SUI
preme court should uphold the posi-
ton of Judge Pritchard in this South
Car oliha case, as admittedly there is
better ground foo invoking the doc