University of South Carolina Libraries
— -ry—r “L -i. »- X . & • \ VOL. XVIII. BARNWELL, S: C., THURSDAY. MAY 16, 1895, • DOWN ON THE LAW. r JUDGE GOFF’S VIEW OF OUR ELEC- _____ TION SYSTEM. *irc~irenrr it rtarem^r^rre^ TOTetfflfToT” Mtltatiop, and Therefore Void - The Rloh» r land Supervisor Knjotued—Dr. Pope’* ' Motion DI«nilMed. Columbia, May 8.—Special: There was a great crowd in the Federal f —court room this morning—drawn them by the previous announcement that there would l>e announced the decis- » ions on all the questions brought be fore the court in the several cases ar gued before the judges. Kvery seat was occupied, and all the available standing room was also used. There . were quite a number of negroes pres ent—tli hese being, for the most part, of the more intelligent class. The room was well filled some little time before the session of the court opened. Promptly at 12 o’clock Judges Goff and Simonton entered from their con sultation room in the rear, and as cended to the rostrum where the seats are provided for thenr. The marshal commanded. “Silence in court! " and he was implicitly obeyed. The audi ence was ail attentiou/ JudjjeGofr, with a short reference to the importance of the case to be de cided and to the short time which he had had to prepare his opinion, said that he would read his judgment in » ftt the case of Mills vs. Green lthe Rich land Supervisor of Registration], re- ‘ “fil serving to himself to file additional authorities if he should .think proper to do so. The case against Gr^iU it Trill be remembered, arose out of the &mpkunt on the part of Mills, a col ored man, that he had lost his right Cp vote for delegates to the Constitu tional Convention, because hehad not had a proper opportunity to register as a Voter, and Because there would be no adequate opportunity for him so to register at any time before the elec- 4ion of delegates to that convention. He asked that the Supervisor lie en joined from proceeding under the "ft ‘ ' registration law, until the merits of his complaints and charges could be considered and determined by the court. The Richland Supervisor, - through ip* the Attorney General, answered,claim ing that the court had no jurisdiction in the premises, and that if it had, it could not grant any injunction on the showing made on behalf of the com plainant Milk:—The real question in the ease, considered bt i: >v Judge Goff, are these: 1. Has the Circuit Court of the United States', jurisdiction to pass upon the matters set forth in the bill of complaint? 2. Is the registra tion law of South Carolina in viola tion of the Federal constitution ? Af ter a full statement of the case asset forth in the bill and the return of the Supervisor, together with full Quota tions from the registration law, Judge Goff proceeded: The question of jurisdiction is first to be determined. Defendant insists that this suit is m effect a proceeding against the State of South Carolina, and that it should not be entertained because prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constltution of the United States., It is not my intention at this time to considet separately the many cases cited by counsel in argu ment bearing on this question. After carefully examining them all, I con- cludq.that it is the duty of the Circuit Court of the United States to restrain a State officer from executing an un constitutional statute of the State, when the execution of it by him would violate or abridge the rights, privileges and immunities of the com plainant that are granted by the Con stitution of the.United States. So far as this question is concerned, it is im material if the officer so restrained be the supervisor of registration, the Au ditor of the State, the Comptroller General, the Treasurer, the Attorney General or the Governor. We do not. have in this country any class of peo . pie, State or national^ officials, or pri vate citizens who are above the law and who are not compelled to respect it. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwith standing. The mandate of the nation's Constitution is addressed to all officers of the United States as well as to all the officers of all the States. The judges of the Federal as well as of the State courts must respect it, for it declares that the judges of every State shall be bound thereby. As is said by the Supreme Court in Dodge vs. Woolsey, 18 How,, 331: “To make its suprema cy more complete, impressive and practical, that there should be no es cape from its operation and that its binding force upon the States and the members of Congress should be un mistakable, it is declared that the Sen : . ators and Representatives before men-' tioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the Uni- tod States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution. It would lie a strange admission, a startling de cision, that the courts of the United States canndt opeii TheiT doors to the citizens of the United States who al leges that they are by the unconstitu tional laws of a State deprived of their privileges or immunities as citizens of the United States and denied the equal protection of the laws within the juris diction of such Statc. I am not aware that any court of the’ United States has ever so held, I trust I will never be advised of such a decision, and I am sure as 1 now ^ee the law and my _duty, that 1 will not so rule,' not es tablish such a precedent. '? The case of in re AyeVs, 1^3 U. S., 443, relied on by defendant’s counsel does not in my judpnent sustain the position taken by them./ In that case the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was denied, not because the officers of ! the State were sued, but because the court found that the act of the Legis lature complained of did not violate any contract, and because the bill did not allege any ground of equitable re lief against the individual defendants for any personal wrong ^committed or threatened by them; because it did not charge against them in -iheir individ ual character anything done or threat ened which constituted in contempla tion of law ajopJaUpa. of personaloc property rights or a breach of contract property to which they were parties. In these particulars the Ayers case differs ma terially from the case now before me. In that case the Supreme Court says : “But this is not intended in any way to infringe upon the principle 'which justifies suits against individual de fendants, who, under color 6Fthe au thority of unconstitutional legislation by the State, are guilty of personal trespasses and wrongs, nor to forbid suits against officers in their oflicial capacity either to arrest or direct their official action by injunction or man damus where such suits are author ized by law, and the act to be ddne or omitted is purely ministerial in' the performance or omission of which the plaintiff has a legal interest.” In Davis vs. Gray, 16 Wall., 203, the Supreme Court held that a Circuit Court of the United States, in a prop er case in equity, may enjoin a State officer from executing a State law in conflict with the Constitution or a statute of, the United States when such execution will violate the rights of the complainant; that making a State of ficer a party does not make the State a party, although her law may prompt his action and she may stand behind hima&ihe real party in interest That case was a suit by Gray against Davis, the Governor of the State of Texas, and Keuchler, Commissioner of the I^aud office of that State, and the in junction issued by the Circuit Court of the United States for the western district of’Tfexas, restraining said offi cers from issuing and signing certain land warrants was sustained,as I have mentioned, by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Pennoyer vs McCon naughy, 140 U. S , 1, in which the Supreme Court reviewed the cases bearing on this subject, Mr. Justice Lamar, speaking for the court, said: “But the general doctrine of Osborne vs. Bank of the United States, that the Circuit Courts of the United States will restrain a State officer from exe cuting ai^ unconstitutional statute of the State, when to execute it would violate rights and privileges of the complainant which had been guaran teed by the Constitution and would work irreparable damage and injury to him has never been departed from. On the contrary, the principles pf that case have been recognized and en forced in a very large number of cases, notably in those We have refer red to as belonging to the second class of cases above mentioned.” . In refer ence to the case just referred to, he used this language: ‘ ‘The first class is where the suit is brought against the officm of the State,as representing the State’s action arid liabilicy, thus mak ing it,«thoifgh not a party to the rec ord. the real party against which the judgment will so operate as to com pel it to s|>ecifically perform its con tracts.” The other classes is where a suit is brought againste defeiidants who, claiming to act as offibers Of tire State, under the color of an unconstitutional statucouinwt . •acts ok wrong AND INJURY to the rights and property of the plain tiff acquired under a contract with the State. Such suit, whether brought to recover money pr property in the hands of such defendants, unlawfully taken by them in behalf of the State, or for compensation in damages, or in a proper case where the remedy at law is inadequate, for an injunction to prevent such wrong and injury, or for a mandamus, in a like case, to en force upon the defendant the perform: ance of a plain legal duty, purely ministerial, is not within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment an ac tion against the State. Osborne vs. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat., 738; Dayis vs. Gray, 16 Wall., 203; Tomlinson vs. Branch, 15 Wall., 460; Litchfield vs. Webster county, l01 U. S., 773; Allen vs. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 114 U^ S., 311; Board of Liquidation vs. McComb, 92 U. S., 531; Poindexter vs. Greenhow, 114 U. S., 270.” Complainant insists that his case is included in the reasoning of the court in the cases last cited, and also that he is entitled to- present- his bill to 'this court, relative to the matters therein set forth, because of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and particularly of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments thereof. To the consideration of this point and of the constitutionality of the registration laws of the State of South Carolina we now come. Complainant insists that the registration laws of South Car olina are in contravention of the pro visions of the Constitution of South Carolina, and that they also violate the Constitution of the United States, his rights as a citizen of the United States being so affected thereby as to entitle him to be heard in this court on the complaint we now consider.- The Constitution of South Carolina" contains the following pro visions: Article 1, section 31: “All elections shall be free and open, and every inhabitantof this common wealth possessing the qualifications provided xor in this Constitution shall have equal right to elect officers and be elected to fill public offices.” Article 8, section 2:- “Every male citizen of the Upited States of the age of 21 years and upwards, not laboring the disabilities named in this under the disabi Constitution, without distinction ftf race, color or former condition, who shall be a resident of this State at the time of the adoption of this Constitu tion, or who shill " hereafter reside in this State one *reAr and in the county in which he offqrsjto vote sixty days next preceding any election, shall be entitled to vote for all officers that are now or hereafter may be elected "by the people, and upon all questions submitted to the electors at any elec tion. Provided that no person shall be allowed to vote or hola office who is now or hereafter may be disquali fied therefor by the Constitution of.tlie United States, until such disqualifica tions shall be removed b\ by the Congress of the United States. Provided, fur ther, that no person, while kept m an almhouse or asylum, or of unsound mind, or confined in anypubltc prison shall be allowed to vote or hold public _ Articls -8, section 3: “H-shall be the duty of tlte General Assembly to pro vide from thneto time for the registra tion of all electors. ” Article 8, section 7: “Every person entitled to tote at any election snail be eligible to any office which now is, or hereafter shall be, elective by the peo- pTe ofThe county where he snail have ny da' resided sixty days previous to such election except as otherwise provided in this Constitution or the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Article 8, section 8: “The General Assembly shall never pass any law that will deprive any of the citizens of this State of tfie right of suffrage, ex cept for treason, murder, robbery or duelling, whereof the person shall have been duly tried and convicted.” Section 2, article 1,’ of the Constitu tion of the United States is as follows: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen eve ry second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have ihe qualifications re quisite for electors of the most numer- bus branch of the State legislature.” Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amend ment is in these wort|s: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the iurlsdlctlo/rthereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State slrall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United veloped the fact that, notwitlistanding the lorn ormal recognition by th6s€"States of the abolition of slaves, the condition of the slave race would, without fur ther protection of the Federal govern • ment, be almost as bad as it was before. adopted by several of the States in the legislative bodies which claimed to be in their normal relations with the Federal government, were laws which imposed upon the colored race onerous disabilities and burdens, and curtailed their rights in the pursuit of life, lib erty .ind property to such an extent States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty orqiroperty with out due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal . protection of the laws. Article 15 of the amendments to the Constitution reads: “Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color or previous con dition of servitude. “Section 2. The Congress shall have power to'enforce this arficle. by appro priate legislation.” , , The Congress lias given to the Cir cuit Courts of the United States juris diction of all suits to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in the several States. We find n6w that a citizen of South Carolina is a citizen of the United States residing in that State. The rights, privileges and inununities fie longing to him as a free citizen are hii as a citizen of the United States, an do not depend upon his citizenship of that State. The plaintiff Mills, a citi zen of African descent, is a citizen of the United States and of the State of South Carolina; by the ^Fourteenth Amendment he - has been made a citizen of the United States and by the Fifteenth Amend ment he is a voter in the State in which he resides. Previous to the adoption of these amendments the race to which he belongs HAD NO RIGHTS' “IS that the white men of this country were bound to respect, and it was not possible for any one belonging to it to r ^ a citizen" of the Ulitteir^iates! iTi the slaughter house cases, the Supreme Court of the United States, referrin to the time immediately preceding an or these amend- followingthe adoption ments, said: “The institution of African slavery, as it existed, in abdlit halt th^States of the union, and the contests pervading the public mind for many years be tween those who desired its curtail ment and ultimate extinction and those who desired additional safe guards for its security and perpetua- tii tion culminated in the effort on the part of most of the States in which slavery existed, to separate from the Federal government and to resist its authority. This constituted the War of the Rebellion and whatever auxili ary causes may have contributed to bring about this war, undoubtedly the overshadowing and efficient cause was African slavery. “In that struggle, slavery, as a le galized social relation, perishsd. It perished as a necessity of tlie bitterness and forte of the conflict. When the armies of freedom found themselves upon the soil of Slavery they could do nothing less-than free the poor victims who$e enforced servitude was the foundation of the quarrel. And when hard pressed in the contest, these men (for they proved themselves men in that terrible crisis) offered their ser vices and were accepted by thousands to aid in suppressing the unlawful re bellion. Slavery was at an end where- ever the Federal government succeed ed in that purpose. The proclamation of President Lincoln expressed an ac complished fact as to a large portion of the insurrectionary distnets, when he declared slavery abolished in them all. But the war being over, those who had succeeded in re-establishing the authority of the Federal govern ment were not content to permit this great act of emancipation to rest on tjie actual results of the contest or the pro clamation of the executive, both of which might have been questioned in after times, and they determined to place Bus main and most valuable re sult in the Constitution of the restored union as one of its fundamental arti cles. Hence the Thirteenth Amend ment to that instrument. Its two short sections seem hardly to admit of construction, so vigorous is their ex pression and so appropriate to the pur- posa we have indicated: ’ “‘1. Neither slavery nor involun tary servitude,- except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction. “ *2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate leg- islation.’ “The process of restoring to their proper relation with the Federal gov ernment and with the other States those which had sided with the .rebel lion, undertaken under the proclama tion of President Johnson in 1865, and before the assembling of Congress, de that their freedom was of little value, while they had lost the protection which they had received from their former owners from motives both of interest and humanity. « > ‘ ‘They were in some States forbidden to appear in the towns in any other characters than menial servants. They were required to reside on and culti vate the soil without the right to pur chase or own it. They were excluded from many occupations of gain and were not permitted to give testimony in thecourts in any case where a white man was a party. It was stpilrtliat their lives were at the inerc^i of bad men, either because the laws for their protection were insufficient or were not enforced. “These circumstances, whatever-of falsehood or misconception may have been mingled with their presentation, forced upon the statesmen who had con- ducted the Federeal . gpvernmeilt in. safety through the crisis of the rebel lion, and who supposed that by the thirteentjk article of amendment they/ had secured the result of their labors, the conviction that something more was necessary in the way. of constitu tional protection to the unfortunate race who had suffered so much. They accordingly passed through Congress the proposition for the Fourteenth Amendment, and they declined to treat as restored to their full participa tion in the government of the union the States which had been in insurrec tion until they ratified that article by a fonnuLvotc of their legislative bodies. “Before we proceed to examine more critically the provisions of this amend ment ion which the plaintiff's in error rely), let us complete and dismiss the history of the recent amendments, as that history relates to the general pur pose which jiervades tliem all. A few years’ experience satisfied the thought ful men who had l>een the authors pf the other two amendments that, not withstanding the restraints of those articles on the States, and the laws passed under the additional powers granted to Congress, tiicoe were inade- quate for the protection of life, liberty and property, without which freedom to the slaves was no boon. They were in all those States denied the right of suff rage. The laws were administered by the white man alone. It was urged is urgeu that a race of men distinctively marked as was the negro, living in the d midst of another and dominant race, could never be fully secured in their person and their property without the right of suffrage. “Hence the Fifteenth Amendment, which declares that “the right of a citizen of the-United States to votp shall not be denied or abridged by any State on account of race, or previous condition of servitude.” The negro haring,- by the- Fourteenth-Amende ment, been declared to be a citizen of the United State, is thus made a voter in-every State of the union. “We repeat, then, in the’dight of this recapitulation of events too recent to be called history, but which are fa miliar to us all; and on the most cas ual examination of the language of these amendments, no one c&n fail to be impressed with the < “ONE PERVADING PIIrPOSK” found in them all, lying at the founda tion of each, and without which none of them would have been Cven sug gested ; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm estab lishment of that freedom, and the pro j tectiou of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised un limited dominion over him. It is true that only the Fifteenth Amendment, CONSTABLES ENJOINED. NOT TO SEIZE LIQUOR BROUGHT IN FOR PRIVATE USE. DecUlon of the United State* Court In the stances charged- in the bill be in con llict with the Constitution of the Uni ted Htates, or any law made thereun- dfer, it is null and void, is as if it never existed, and they are left without jus tification. r , .. The qucstroTTs made in tbe-btfMrre'ffb Federal questionia. Are the acta com Cane* Heard Last Werk—An Injunction Agalnat All the State Countalitilary. Columbia, S. C., May 8.—Special; There was the usual crowd in the Fed eral court room yesterday and today. Unusual interesUWSS taken in the ar gumenf yesterday—being ”. Bryan of Charleston, the speech of Mr. J. R. K " / in support of the motion to enjoin the dispensary officers and agents from interfering with liquors brought into this State for private consumption. There wart Other details in the case, but this was the main question to which the argument was directed. A case having the same object as Mr. Bryan’s was also brought by Messrs. Rope and Caldwell. In these cases Judges Goff and Simonton sat tm gether. > On behalf of the State, Assistant Attorney General Townsend read the return ol the dispensary officers, set ting up, in substance, Um: the dispen sary law is a police regulation of the State of South Carolina, and that it does not at all interfere with interstate commerce. There were other points dained ot in violation of the Consti- ution of the United States or oRany aw passed thereunder? l_ This court, sitting in equity, has ju risdiction over the matters stated in the bill, to prevent a multiplicity of suits, and-Vcatr ias no plain, adequate or "complete O remedy at law. We come then to the all-important question on the merits of the bill. Is the provision of the dispensary aw, which forbids a citizen of the State himself to import for his own use from the other States alcoholic li- uors sustainable under the act of ongress commonly known as the Wilson bill! It is, if these provisions pf the dispensary law are tne lawful exercise of the police iiower of the Statp.... , * The dispens^Lrgf law nowhere de clares that use and consumption of alcoholic liquors in themselves are in- ; urious to the morals, good health and safety of the State, or of her people. On the contrary the dispenrary law makes the most ample provision for the , purchase of alcoholic liquors in this State, and elsewhere, for their made.pn tliisjiide^alsp^but the steje-^ 4igtf4bution in convenient-packages ment just given coversibe grOumT The different lawyers spoke in the following order: Mr. Townsend, Dr. Rope. Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Barber. The positions taken by either side are intelligibly stated in the opin ion of Judge Simonton, which was delivered this morning. It is as fol lows r James Dotiald vs. J. M. Scott, M. T. Holley, Hr.y et al. This is a lull against the defendants. State constables of the Stab* of South Carolina. The bill state's that complainant who is a citizen of the United States, and of the State of South Carolina, was the owner of certain packages of alcoholic liquor, to wit: One barrel of Rochester l»eer, made in the State of New A’ork, and snipped to him by ocean and land routes to the city of Charleston, his place of reshleaee. One package of Pickwick club whis key, containing six quart bottles pur chased in Baltimore, in the Slate of Maryland, and shipped to him by steamer and railroad to Charleston, South Carolina, his residence, and ine ciwe of domestic C&llfornia claret, State, for use and consumption by the )eople of the State, and in every way it encourages such use and consump tion. Even in localities in which the majority of the inhabitants refuse to lave a dispensary, provision is made l or the procurement of alcoholic li quor by those persons within the lo •ality who desire to use it. Alcoholic iquor is declared to be contraband and against morals, good health and safety of the State, only when it is not imported by the dispenser, or is not in iis hands, or in the hands of someone with his permission. Alcoholic li quors imported into this State and de clared contraband, and so subject to seizure, just as soon as they are seized ami passed into the hands of the dis penser. lose their injurious qualities, are put into the channels of distribu tion and are sold to the people of the State for their use and consumption. It is not necessary to go into a min ute and detailed examination of all i.he provisions of the dispensary law, nor to determine whether all these containing one dozen quart bottles, shipped.to him from the place of pur chase, Savannah, in the State of Geor gia, to Charleston by rail. That these packages contained liquors for his own personal use and consumption, and not for sale in any. way. That none of them contained any product of the State of South Carolina, but their contents were products of oilier States of the Union. That each pack- was openly marked in his name, upon the arrival of each of the said packages at Charleston, its desti nation, it was forcibly seized by the defendantvclaimihg to act^'as State constables, and taken and carried by them by pretense of authority of the act Of the General Assembly t>f South Carolina, approved 2d January, 1895, known : age w That law. That before the arrival of eacn commonlv as the shipment the complainant had ^iven in terms, mentions the negro by speak- ' ‘ ‘ la ing of his color and his slavery. But it is just as true that each of the other articles was addressed to the griev ances of that race, and.designed to re medy them,, as the Ffteenth. “Wei ^do not say that no one else but the negro can share in this protection: | Both the language and spirit of these articles are to have their just weight in any question of construction. Un doubtedly' while negro slavery alone was in the mind of the Congress which proposed the thirteenth article, it for bids any other kind of slavery, now or hereafter. If Mexican peonage or the Chinese coolje system shall de velop slavery of the Mexican or Chi nese race within our territory, this amendment may be safely trusted to make it void. "And so if other rights are assailed by the States which pro- perly and necessarily fall within the protection of these articles, that protec- tiop will apply, though the party in- ,terested may not be df African descent. But what we do say, and what we wish to be understood is. that in any fair and just construction of any section or phrase of these amendments, it is necessary_U> look to the purpose, which we have said was the’ pervading spirit of them all, the evil which they were designed to remedy, and the prooe&s of continual addition.to the Constitution until that purpose was supposed to be accomplished, as far as constitutional law can accomplish it. “The first section of the fourteenth article, to which our attention is more especially invited, opens with a defini tion of citizenship—not only citizen ship of the United States, but citizen ship of the States. No such definition was previously found in the Constitu- lion, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of,Congress. It bail been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States except as he was a citizen of-one of the States composing the union. Those, therefore, who had been born and re sided always in the District of Colum bia or in tbq ; _T er ritortei, though with- |CONTINUED ON PAGE FOUR. | »P . notice to the defendants of his inten tion to import the same for his own rsonal use, from points without this tate, and that the defendants, when they made their several seizures, had knowledge of all the facts connected with the importation, shipmerdr and proposed use of the packages. That upon each seizure, and after demand and refusal, he brought his action for the unlawful trespass on his rights by * li the defendants, and that notwithstan ing this, they persist therein.and man ifestly propose to drive him to a mul tiplicity of suits. That he had no ad equate remedy at law, for these re leated violations of his rights, as de ‘endants are notoriously insolvent, and jiecuniarily irresponsible. He avers that so much of the dispensary law as is set up in justification of these acts of the defendants, in preventing him from importing, for his own use and consumption, alcoholic liquors, the products of other States, into this State, violates the interstate commerce law, as established by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and is null and void. His bill filed as well in his own behalf, as in that of other citizens of this State, in like plight with himself, prays an injunction against the' defendants, forbidding them to continue their unlawfu search and seizure of packages import ed as these were. ’** Upon filing the bill a rule was is sued requiring the defendants to ap pear and show cause why an injunc tion should not be issued as prayed for in the bilL * The defendants hqve appeared,’ and have filed their return. Afterdenying the jurisdiction of the court, because this suit is in fact one against the State, and because it pre sents no question arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and because the allegations of the bill show no groiind of equity ju risdiction, they answer in detail the allegations of the bill, excusing am justifying their conduct in the prem ises under the provisions of the dispen sary law. The arguments at the hearing on both sides have been able and exhaus live. The time at the command of the court forbids for the present any ex tended discussion, of the important points raised and elaborately discuss ed. This must be reserved for a fu ture occasion. Conclusions can only at ihis time be given. It is not a suit against the State o' South Carolina, nor is she in any way a party thereto. Certain persons claim to act in the name of the State, bos.ng their claim on the dispensary law Their justification depends on the va lidity of that law, and if it ortha; part of it which authorizes them to whatsoever within this State for such intoxicating liquors as aforesaid im ported or brought into this State for use or consumption or from hinder- - „ and preventing by any means whatsoever the complainant. James l&tto of and tons and nsumer of the ales, been, wines spirituous liquors of other States and foreign counties from importing, lolding, pdmeesing, using and con suming tfie said'in toxcating liquors as aforesaid, so imported for nis use and insumptioiT ■ Charum H. Simonton. May 8th, 1895. Circuit Judge. ' THE DUNBAR CAB*. In the case brought by one Dunbar, rough Messrs. Pope and Caldwell, Judge Simonton also delivered the , udgment of the court. In substance te held tliat Dunbar's complaint does entitle him to the injunction pipy- for, chiefly because, as shown by return of the State officials, the >arty who made the seizure was not >efore the court and because his act lad not be commanded or induced by any .of such officials. The temporary ■nju notion heretofore issued was ac- Tdingly dissolved. not ed the son ■within the reach of nearly every per- throughout all portions of the \ T|ie Contempt Cam. The decision of the court in the pro- eeding against Dispensary Commis sioner Mixon and Constables A. T. tavis and S. G. Laftr. .charged -with-_ “ontempt of court in disregarding the injunctions of Judge Goff and Judge Simonton, respectively—which in- ■ junctions forbade the seizure of liquor wrought into this State, consigned to jrivate parties, was also delivered this morn i ng. One alleged contempt con sisted in the issue of the following cir cular leflerj . ; Col.UMlUA, a C., April 25, 1895 < 'uvular I x’ttcr to State Constables l - Sir: Endow'd you will find three m the! exer It is suffici- provisions are, or are not cise of the police power, ent for the purposes of this case to say that in so far as the dispensary law for fids a citizen to purchase in other State, and to import into this State al coholic liquors for his own use and consumption, the products of other State, it discriminates against the pro ducts of other states. Suchdiscrimina tion cannot be made under the guise of the police power. Walling vs. Michigan, 116 U. S., 446, cited and ap proved in Rlubley vs, Massachusetts, 155 U. S., 471. Ernest vs. Missouri 156 U. S., 296. And further in so far as this act permits the chief dispenser to purchase in other States alcoholic uo»j and to import them into this tie for the purpose of selling Ihem. for use and consumption, at retail within the State, and forbids all other persons from so purchasing and itn porting for their individual uae and consumption, it disenminat’es against all other citizens of the State. It also makes a discrimination against all per sons in the trade in other States who are not patronized by the State dispen ser, folbidding them to seek customers within the State, and to enioy a com mercial intercourse secured to others in this State. .> These conditions rest on this dis crimination. It it did not exist, and if all alcoholic liquors were excludei from the State, or if all persons were forbidden to import alcoholic liquors, or if the laws of South Carolina had declared that all alcoholic liquors were of such poisonous and detriment al character, and that their use am consumption as a beverage were against the morals, good health am safety of the State, other and differen, questiofift would arise. Let’an injunction Issue as prayed for in the bill. ’ THE INJUNCTION. On motion of J. R. K. Bryan, etc., it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that a writ of injunction be awarded am do issue out of this court, command in finds of certificate.'! to be used only as follows: One to.bring goods into the the State, one to carry goods out of State and the other to ship goods from point to point in the State. The latter ones will be used by every one who does any shipping in the State, includ ing shipping from the State dispensary to the county dispensaries and else where, and by the State constables in shipping to the commission here. You II see that the blanks are properly lllletl in and you will be particularly vigilant to catch any packages going rom place to place in this State not rearing the proper certificate and in taking packages shipped into or out of the State, unless properly stamped. de g and enjoining andTestraiqing the srendants, M. T. Holley„ Sr., as chief constable of the State- of South Caro lina, and all other State constables of the State of South Carolina, and offi cers and others persons acting under him, and their successors in office, am also the defendents. J. M. Scott. R. M Gardner andE. C. Beach and all other State constables of the State of South Carolina and all county sheriffs am their deputies and all municipal offi cers chiefs of police and all .other offi cers of the State of South Carolina, or of any county, city or town of the sail State of South Carolina, and all per sons Whomsoever acting or claiming ■ to act under the authority of the act o’ the General Assembly of the State ol South Carolina, approved Januar 1895, or under any warrant issu orunder authority thereof from seiz ing or attempting to seize in transit or otherwise, both before and after arri val in the State of South Carolina, ant at any place in the State of South Car olina, and from taking, carry away or confiscating any packages whatsoever of ales wines, beers or spirituous li uors, or any intoxicating liquours, e product of any other State foreign country, imported into, brought into the State of South Caro lina oy any means of transportation whatsoever, by the complainant James Donald, or any other person whomso ever, for his own use and consumption: and from entering fdinbly or search ing or attemping to seach the premises or dwelling of the complainaint, James Donald, or any other person the State of South Carolina, or any railroad depot, railroad car or steam qui the epot seize and carry away the property of boat, or sailing vessel, or other vehicle the complainant under the circum-1 of intersate commerce or any vehicle ikmth Carolina as importer You will also find twelve of the certifi cates for your own use. Send into me apy others you piay have on hand. F. M. Mix son, State Commissioner, Each of the constables set up th^t he did not know of the injunotion and that ne was acting under the law. In rath returns, also, it was claimed that .he court was without jurisdiction in the premises. All the parties attached 'or contempt disclaimed any purpose whatever to disregard the orders of the court, and expressed their purpose to future. obey them in >ev tl The Commissioner stated that in is suing the circular letter he had no pur- ' to disregard any Order of court, decision in this matter was as fol- his pose m The ows: United States of America, District of SoutlrOarolina, Fourth Circuit—In the Circuit Court—In re Frank M. Mixson. The respondent in his return to the rule issued against him diw»laim« on oath any intent or purpose to oppose, y tne order of his disregard or disobey court. In the special matter of the certifi cates issued-by him to the State con stables he says under oath that this was done in the ordinary duties of his office, that the certificates were pre pared long before the order was issued and although they were marked on the same day on which the order was served on him, he did this with no in tent or purpose of disobeying or disre garding the order. That in his circular letter addressed to the State constables simultaneously with the issue of the certificates he in advertently gave them -instructions. His counsel in his behalf stated in o'Pen court that this was the result of inexperience in his office. He now knows that he has no right to give constables any instructions. But he disclaims in so doing any intent or purposfe of opposing, disregarding or disobeying the order of this court. .tig Under these circumstances, and in view of these solemn declarations un der oath by respondent he is held to have purged himself of contempt, le is discharged. Charles H. Simonton, May 8, 1895. Circuit Judge. A llcmedjr for Chicken Cholera. This is the time of year when own* ers of poultry are fearing and trem bling about chicken cholera. A gen tleman came into the office recently and mentioned that he had recently • • _ been visiting- in a neighboring town » bant had a and noticed that a mercl barrel of Venetian red. He asked him what was the object in keeping so much of the red on hand. The reply was that The people in that section t i * used it to prevent and cure chicken to pr cholera. The curiosity of the visitor was excited and he ascertained that it wat the custom to mix a tablespoonful of the red in a pint of corn meal, and give it to the fowls two or three timaa a week and when so used there no cholera.—Greenville News. Two Young Ladle* Drowned. Mount Jackson, Va., May 5.—Miss Birdie Neuf, daughter of Captain Neuf, XSTri/t 4 A • Al IT* _ who represents this county in the Vire m tT 1 »A T AASVItil n4 ««en*v f 1 IT AA _ spresenl v ginia legislature, and Miss WynttTa ‘ school teacher of Charlestown, voung sc 'Vest V a., were drownedyesterdaj the Shenandoah river. The laHiaa jy on ■i ladka, ac companied by Charles Bowman, cash ier of the Mount Jackson National Bank, and another lady, were boating. The boat capsized. Mr. Bowman seized the lady nearest him and swam with her to the shore, the others sank * he could return to their T* r.:~ V * * ‘ Hi