Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1909-04-06
United States Supreme Court Re.
verses Decisions O. Two Lower
Federal Tribunals.
DECISION DIssolvEs INJUNCTION.
States Funds Taken Out Of Hands
OF Receiver and Restored to Com
mission-Attorney General Of Pal
netto state Also Wins His Con.
decentralization Compliments.
(By Associated Press. }

(By Associated Press.)
WASHINGTON. D. c., April 5.-The
nous South Chrolina dispensary
case involving the disposition OF about
$500. 900 of dispensary funds held ny
decided by the United States Supreme
Court toay In favor OF the commits
sion.
The Supreme Court also affirmed
the decision Of the state court In the
case OF dispensary commission vs..
the State. involving the demand OF
Attorney General Lyons for setting
aside by the commission OF funds
for prosecution of violations OF ais
pensary law.
History Of Case.
The first case was Instituted by the
Wilson Distilling Company and the
Fleischman Company Id the United
States Circuit for the district of South
Carolina to collect debts contractea
by the state In the purchase OF liquor
IN the state from 1892 to 1907 while
the dispensary system was In vogue.
The commission. consisting of w. j.
Murray, John McSween and Avery
Patton, was appointed In 1907, when
the state resolved to go out Of the
liquor business. This commission was
empowered by the legislature to col
lect all moneys due the state and to
pay all Of its debts. Attic time the
suits were Instituted, about $3.50 90
had been collected and there still was
about 100000 due. Bills for s0me-
thing over $6O0,00 were presented by
liquor dealers, and when the confmis-
sion declined to pay them rs prompt
Iy as the creditors considered It de-
sirable they brought suits for their
circuit court, they alleged that the
ed into conspiracy to hold the funds
for their own selfish purposes In sup
port of which assertion they declared
that the money was deposited in
banks in which members of the con-
mission were officers or stockholders.
Commission Resisted Suit.
On the other hand the commission
ers alleged a coalition among the cred
itors to collect excessive sums and
asserted that they had 'ouly taken the
necessary precaution of investigators
before making payment OF any liabili-
ties that might be justly due. The
commission resisted the suit on the
ground that II was proceedinG
against the state itself, and that the
commission is court, ard therefore
not subject to Injunction.
The circuit court overruled both
of these pleas, placed the dispeusaSy
funds in the hands OF receiver sAd
granted an injunction against tAA;
commits sion prohibiting It from dispce
ing Of the funds in It's possession
This opinion was afterwads At
Hrmed by the United States circuit
court vas today reversed by the 30
prcme Court.
The second Case.
The Attorney Generals suit aeaans3
the Commission was brought IN the Su-
preme Court of the state and wss de-
Tended by the commission on TIE
gro.lSd that as the federal couvt ~
enjoined the commission from pay1nK
ont any OF the dispeBsary fund. g
could not recognize the attorney GeH-
erals demand. The state court, held.
however. that federal courts we're de-
void of jurisdiction in q case dealfag
entirely with state matters. and there
fore directed that the fund for the
attorney generals purposes be Get
apart- IS directed. This amounted to
SIS .OOc.
The commission lroaght the case 10
the Supreme Court on Q wri. d error
and the decision Of the state court
was aftcrward affirmed.
was Suit Asasnss Stses-
Justice White declared that the
fundamental question underlying an
the contentious was whether. IN sab
stance, the suits were sSAiast tie
state. and therefore beyond the jurjsr
dicfion Of the circsi, court tecaase e
the expressed prohibition u the eSev-
enth amendment 10 the constitution.
He proceeded to show that the sstts
we're directed against the state aa1
the commission did not occupy he -.
siiion Of trustee Of the dispeHsary
4 funds.
The Purchase Of liquors. he'd ben
made. he said, by the sfate fof ks
account. This irresistible ccaclusjoa
was. he declared. removed beyond -
possible controversy BY former -
cisions Of this coart and by TIE -
Il