The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1916-01-25
even when the liquors are for personal use

The statute relating the shipment Of intoxicating liquors
into the of South Carolina approved the Goth day
of February 1915 the following Sections of which peril
ncnt to the questions involved:
Sec That it shall be unlawful for any person. firm cor
poration company ship transport any ntoX
eating liquors from point without the State into this State
or from one point to another in this State for the purpose of
delivery deliver the any person. r corporation
or company within this State, for any person. firm, cor
poraton or company receive be possession Of any
spuous vnou ermented malt liquors beverages con-
tanning than per Of alcohol for his her. Its or
their use, for the OF any other person. rl or
corporation, except hereinafter provided
Sec g. Any person may order and receive from any point
without the State exceeding gallon within calendar
month"; for his her personal of splrltuou vloS ter
mented or matted liquors or beverages,
Sec T. Any person violating any of the provisions OF this
Act shall be subject to fine of less than hundred dol
lars, imprisonment for not less than three months or Dot
in the discretion of the Court.
1t is the purpose of this brief insist that the Statute of
South Carolina prohibiting the receipt and possession OF IN
toxcating liquors personal except only in limited
quantities. is valid exercise Of the police powers Of this State
that it is not in contravetion of the Fourteenth Amendment
of the Federal Constitution that such Statute lays the pre-
cate for the operation OF prohibition contained III the Webb
KENYON act and that said Federal Act is valid exercise by
Congress OF the powers regulate in liquors among
the States.
T.
In the case OF Iddms Express Co. Com. OF Kentucky
8 L. S. 0o reference made by this Court to the Webb
KENYON Act which was there construed
The Court regarded the Act regulation Of interstate
commerce bv Congress- pursuant the responsibility resting
upon if as RECOGNIZED and stated in Leir Hardin I35 H. s.
100 and in the case of In Re RGrcr T. S. 5o to remove
SO far as the regulation Of interstate is concerned
the restriction upon the States dealing with imported articles
OF trade within their limits which articles have been min
gled with the common OF property therein
In the Kentucky case SUPRA reference made to the
Wilson Act of 1890 and the of IN Re RGreT I4o
u S. 546 sustaining the which it was held that Con-
gres had not thereby attempted delegate the power to reg
uate commerce. exercise any power reserved to the
States or to grant power possessed by the State, to
adopt State laws but had taken its and made It's
own regulation applying subjects of interstate commerce
one common rule whose uniformity not affected by Var1a-
tions in State laws in dealing with such property; and that
Congress did of permission to the State to act
but simply removed impeachment the enforcement OF State
laws in respect to imported packages in their original cond
ton such impeachment having been created by the absence OF
specific tterance on the part of Congress- that Congress
impaired no power to State then possessed but allowed
imported property to fall at once upon arrival within the local
jurisdiction.
1t seems evident to us that the foregoing language applies
Kenyon Act and concusivey establishes the validity of the
same.
In Rhodes a. Io7cu 40 T. S. 12, and in Vance o. V0uder
cook 40 u S. 28 the Wilson Act construed in such
way as that State under its police power might regulate the
traffic in intoxicating liquors after delivery to the conslgne
although nothing the Wilson Act prevented shipments OF
liquor in interstate consgnee for his use
so long as he did undertake to sell it. This result how
ever was deduced from the commerce clause of the Federal
Constitution in connection with the Courts Interpretation OF
the Wilson Act and not from the Fourteenth Amendment
to the Federal CONSTITUTIONS from consideration of the
police power of the State
The cases Just referred rested rather upon the broad
principle (Which existed until there Congressional action
the contrary of the freedom of commerce between the
States and of the right of citizen of State to freely con-
tract to receive merchandise from another State and of the
equal right of citizen of State contract to send merca
disc into States and they rested also upon the obvious
want of power of State destroy contracts concerning
interstate commerce. valid in the State where made, eX
planned bv the present Chief Justice in the American En-