University of South Carolina Libraries
" 'xrx < : mm The Press and Banner. 9|g BY HUGH WILSON. ~~ Wm aiiheYILLI:, <> I JUDGE SIMONTOM'S OPINION f IN THE NOW FAMOUS DISPENSARY CASE. Full Trzt of the Opinion In the Canetbat Knocked the riepi'nBary Law Ouf, Wfclch Will be Read With iDtereitt. Knowirg the interest that is taken in the recent decision of Judge Simonton declaring the Dispensary law un constitutional we present below the full text of the opinion upon which that decision was based: * Tbe United States of America, District of South Carolina?In tbe Circuit Court -Fourth Circuit?In Equity. The W. A. Vandercock Company vs. S. W. T>_i? t \r \C T:*T v ance, w. j>. uaur, .?. iu. cuuu, jjuingston, C. S. Moseley, M. Peterman? Simonton, Circuit J udge. This is a bill in equity filed by complainant, a corporatiou of the State of California, against S. W.Vance, who is State commissioner under the dispensary law, and W. N. Bahr and others, who are State constables appointed to put this law in execution. The bill alleges that the complainant is the owner of vineyards in the State of California, and / that it manufactured from grapes of such vineyards well known pure wines, brandies and other liquors particularly of clarets, rhine wine, burgundies and champagne That by its traveling agent the complainant took orders from certain citizens and residents of the State of South Carolina to delivaavfoin ftrtffinttl lmhlracrm CI IU CttV/U VA IUVIU VV1 vu?u e of wines, etc., products of its vineyards, filled said orders and shipped from San Faancisco in California to Charleston, South Carolina, by rail, a carload of its products, containing 73 separate original packages, for each of its said customers, all marked with its name and address in California, adopting this mode of shipping by carload in order to obtain a large reduction in freight. That the goods so shipped arrived in Charleston, passing through the hands of several com mon carriers in continuous route; ana inereupon were seized without warrant by defendants Bahr and Scott, and 00 of the packages were shipped by said constables to Columbia to John F. Gaston, then State commissioner, got into his bauds and then into the hands of his successor, S. W. Vance, with full notice of the unlawful seizure and that Vance, notwithstanding refuses to deliver them to complainant or its agent, after repeated demands and threatens to convert and sell the same to citizens of South Carolina. That these same constables and others, Ati + k/wM + tr ihraofon tn in iiav. aUbUVltVJ, tuivmvii w wvi-? ? like manner, all wines shipped by complainant into this State wherever found and for whatever purpose shipped, arriving in said city of Charleston, and in like manner to ship and deliver the same to said S. W. Vance, who likewise threatens to convert the \ same, to the great damage of complainant and to the obstruction and destruction of its lawful business and interstate commerce and trade in it* wines, etc., with citizens and residents of South Carolina. The bill then alleges the shipment of another importation of wines, etc.. in separate original packages from its vineyards in California, upon orders from residents of South Corolin*, the arrival of the same in South Carolina and the wrongful seizure of the same by State constables. That other orders have been obtained for other residents of South Carolina for separate original packages and that upon such order complainant proposes to ship such packages to South Carolina in due course of interstate commerce, and that in the future it intends i to seeK similar oraers ana to snip mereupuu similar original packages into the State of South Carolina. The bill further alleges that it intends in the course of its business further and in addition to such shipments so ordered by customers in advance, to ship also from San Francisco, California, to its agent in the State of South Carolina and to store and warehouse in South Carolina and to sell in the State of South Carolina, in the original, unbroken packages as imported as aforesaid, to residents of South Carolina, its wines and liquors, products of its vineyards in the due and lawful exercise of its rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States. And that the defendants threaten to seize, take and carry away, convert and sell all such shipments. The bill then charges that by the dispensary act of 1897, under which the defendants seek to justify their action, B.11 wines, haers. ales, alcoholic and other ia toxicating liquors are tbc subjects of lawful manufacture, barter, sale, export and import in the State of South Corolina, and have been and are being and will continue to be lawfully used and consumed as a beverage by citizens and residents of the State of South Carolina. And that the products of its vinejards are lawful subjects of interstate and foreign trade and commerce. The bill then charges that the said dispensary law, insofar as it authorizes the acts of the defendants, or in any way attempts" to abridge the right of importation of the products of complainant's vinej ards, into this State and there to sell in original packages or in any wise hinders and prevents its intercourse, commerce and trade with citizens and residents of South Carolina, in the pro <lucts of its vineyards in euch original packages, is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States and is null and voidThe bill then alleges facta sustaining the jurisdiction of this court and securing the jurisdiction of the Uaited States supreme court and prays a temporary, to be followed by a permanent injunction. Upon the filing of the bill, a rule was issued against the defendants to show cause why the injunction prayed for in the bill be not granted. The return sets out three jurisdictional exceptions. First, that the bill presents no question arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Second, that the bill is defective in its allegations and does not state a case coming within the jurisdiction of this court. Third, that the bill presents no case for the jurisdiction of a court of equity as the plaintiff has a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law. The bare inspection of the bill shows these objections to be unfounded. The return then addressed itself to the merits. It sets out clearly that the ship inents made by complainant were made by bill of lading to a gentleman in this State, in this behalf selected as the agent of complainant, for distribution of the packages and perhaps the receipt of the purchase money. It then admits the main facts of the bill and charges that the shipments made by complainant and those contemplated by it and the course of deal ng in the future which it intends, are in contravention of the act of assembly of 1897, the amendment to the dispensary law. And that under that act, and Jie other acts which it amends, the course and action of the State officials were justified and were right and proper. This case brirgs up squarely the ques lion, "xias a producer 01 iuconoiie liquors iu another State, th<i right under the Constitution of the United States, in the present condition of the law of South Carolina, to ship into that State his products in original pack, ages and to sell tliem in the original packages, either upon order sent in advance of shipment or upon purchases made after ehipment and arrival?" The questiou is one of grave importance. The very able and exhaustive arguments of counsel on both sides have put the court in possession of every argument which can be used upon it. They have received the careful consideration which they and the questions to which they were addressed, deserve. f"~- " ' ' " ... ? i Section 8, Article I of the Constitution of the United States declares: "Tho congress shall have power * * to regulate com-f merce with foreign nations and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes " The supreme court of the United States has now established by a current of decisions which cannot be misunderstood, that under this section, congress alone has the right to fix, prescribe aud regulate interstate and foreign commerce, and that no ono of the States can in any way interfere with such commerce or prescribe any regulation thereof without the consent of congress. "While by virtue of its jurisdiction over persons ana property within its limits a State may provide for the security of the lives, limbs, and comfort of persons and the protection of property so situated, yet a subject matter which has been confided exclusively to congress by the Constitution, is not within the jurisdiction of the police power of the State unless placed there by congressional action. (Henderson vs. Mayor of New York, 92 U. S., 259 Railroad Company vs. Iluscn, 95 U. S., 4G5; Walling vs- Michigan, 116 U. S., -160; Robbins vs. Shelby, 120 U. S, 489.) "Inasmuch as interstate commerce, consisting in the transportation, purchase, sale and exchange of commodities is national in its character and must be governed by a uniform system, so long as congress does not pass any law to regulate it or allows the State to do so, it thereby indicates its will that such commerce shall be free and untrammeled.'' (County *f Mobile vs. Kimball, 102 U S., C9-; Brown vs Houston, li4 u. s. 022; Wabash <S;c. Railway vs. Illinois, 118 U, S., 557.) The application of this doctrine to the effect of State legislation upon the importation of alcoholic liquors into a State, camc up for discussion and deoision in Leisy vs. Hardin, 135 U. S., 100. That case aroBe under the prohibition laws of Iowa, Section 1523 of the code of Iowa provided: "No person shall manufacture or sell by himself, clerk or steward or agent, directly or indirectly, any intoxicating liquors except as hereinafter provided. And the keeping of intoxicating liquor with intent upon the part of the owner thereof or any person acting under his authority or by his permission to sell the same within this State, contrary to the provisions of this chapter, is hereby prohibited aad the intoxicating liquor so kept, together with the vessels in which it is contained, is declared a nuisance and shall be forfeited and dealt with as hereinafter provided." Chapter 71 of acts of 1882 of Iowa pro- i vided: "That after this act takes effect no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, keep for sale, give away, exchange, barter or dispense any intoxicating liquor for any person whatever, otherwise than is provided in this act. Persons holding permits as herein provided. shall be authorized to sell and dispense intoxicating liquors for pharmaceutical and medecinal purposes, and alcohol for specified chemical purposes and wine for sacrimental purposes, but for no other purposes whatever." The act then provides for the issue of permits for this purpose by the district court of the couuty, which permits hold good for one year. 1 Thooo ncniriuinna hom/r in full fnrep T.niflV &Co., brewers in Peoria, Illinois, shipped into Iowa by rail to Keokuk, sundry barrels of beer in original packages, .and sold and offered for sale in Keokuk, only in unbroken original packages this beer. Thereupon it was seized and held subject to the laws of Iowa above quoted. The cause went up i through the several State courts into the 1 supreme court of the United States. By that I court the case was held under deliberation 1 and finally the opinion was pronounced by the chief justice as the organ of the court, i The points to be decided are thus put: "That I ardent spirits, distilled liquors, ale and beer are subjects of exchange, barter and traffic 1 like any other commodity in which a right of traffio exists and are so recognized by the I usage ox me commorciai woriu, me laws 01 congress and the decisions of the courts is not denied. Being thus articles of commerce, can a State in the absence of legislation on the part of congress prohibit their importation from abroad or from a sister State or when imported prohibit their sales by the importer?" In answering these questions the court goes into a full and elaborate examination of all the authorities, the conclusion is expressed in these words: "The plaintiffs in error are citizens of Illinois, are not pharmacists and have no permit" (the prerequisites of the Iowa act) "but import beer into Iowa which tbey sell in original packages. Under our ^decision in Bowman vs. Chicago, supra, they had the right to import the beer into that State and in the view we have expressed they had the right to sell it, by which act I alone it would become mingled in the common 1 mass of property within the State. Up to that point of time we hold that in the absence of congressional permission to do so, the State had no power to interfere by seizure or any other action in prohibition of importation and sale by the foreign or non-resident importer." Upon the publication of this opinion, the congress recognizing its force, enacted the act of August 8th, 18'JO, commonly known as the Wilson act. The act is in these words: "That all fermented, distilled or of intoxicating liquors or liquids, transported into any State or territory or remaining therein for use, consumption, sale or storage therein shall upon arrival in such State or territory he subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or territory, enacted in the exercise of its police powers, to the same extent and in the same manner as though such liquids or liquors had been produced in such Slate or territory, and shall not be ? exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original packages or otherwise." The case of Leisy vs. Hardin is discussed in Plumly vs. Massachusetts, 155 U. S , 642, and in Everet vs. Missouri, 160 U. S., 821, in which ca3c also the act of 1890 is mentionedThe controlling question in the case before us is: llow does the Wilson act affect the South Carolina statute? In the recent case of Scott vs. Donald, 165 U. S., 58, a case from this circuit under the dispensary law, as it stood before the passage of the present act, the supreme court discuss the dispensary law, and condemned it. They hold that the Wilson a?t did not protect it. This case of Donald vs. Scott was brought because of the seizure aud confiscation of certain alcoholic liquors, products of other States, imported by the plaintiff for his personal use. The conclusion of the supreme court, after full discussion of all the cases bearing upon the question, is: "In the light of these cases the act of South Carolina, January 2, 1895, (dispensary law,) must as to those of its provisions which affect the plaintiff in the present suits be condemned." (165 U. S., 99.) This act of 1895 was amended in 1896, UUU WIICU 11113 UcUlolUli W tl3 puuiisucu IUC ] law was further amended in 1897, and this < case will turn on these amendments. ] Have the amendments cured the object- i ionable features in the act of 18!>5? In Donald vs. Scott, the supreme court say of the <. act of 1895: "It is important to observe that j the statute does not purport to prohibit I either the importation, the manufacture, the i sale or the use of intoxicating liquors. The i first section does, indeed, make it penal to i manufacture, sell, barter, deliver, store or nuvp iu pU0:V03lUU OUJ SpilllUUUO, UlUili, vinous, fermented, brewed or other liquors i which contain alcohol and are used as a beverage, except as hereinafter provided, < and declares all such liquors contraband. * i * Vet these enactments arc not absolute, : but are made subject to the subsequent pro- i visions of the act. When these provisions are examined we find that so far from the i importation, manufacture and sale of such liquors being prohibited, these operations are turned over to State functionaries by i whom alone or under whose direction they are carried on." The amending act of 1807,, ^ y' ' + ' V contains provisions almost identical in language, exactly identical in effect. The act of 1897 amends section 3 of the act of 1895] and still further amends sections 15 and 23, which had been amended by the act of 1890, removing from these last two sections, features of discrimination. But these changes in nowise meet the criticism of the supreme court of the act of 1895. This criticism was UUt uu mwc uiouiiiuiiKtiiviio uuij. ?.uv court says: "In view of these and similar provisions, it is indisputable that whatever else may be said of this act, it was not intended to prohib t the manufacture, sale and use of alcoholic liquors. On the contrary, liquors and wines are recognized as commodities, which may be lawfully made, bought and sold, and must, therefore, be deemed the subject of foreign and interstate commerce. Section 2 provides that the State board of control shall purchase all liquors for sale in this State. Section 3, after providing for the appointment of a commissioner, proscribes how lie shall furnish liquors to the county dispensers for sale. Section 7 provides for county dispensers who snail sen liquors. Section 15 provides for granting licenses to manufacture liquors. Section 23 provides for a regular quarterly report from all licensed distillers. These sections in the act of 1897 sustain the criticism of the supreme court. It is clear that before the State can forbid the importation and sale in original packages of alcoholic liquors, it must declare the manufacture, sale and use as a beverage of all alcoholic liquors to be contraband and forbidden, aud so take them out of the category of legitimate articles of Mmmerna. She cannot for her own Dumo ses treat these liquors as the subject of foreiga and inters ate commerce, and declares them not to be such to the re3t of the world. The appalling statistics of misery, pauperism and crime which have their origin and owe their existence to the use or abuse of alcoholic spirits, are the justification for police regulations with regard to them and keep them under the control of the police power. Considerations of public safety, the supreme laws override every other, and measures, however drastic, which prevent the existence of this evil, will be sanctioned and enforced. But when the State herself for her own pur/vo /-v ka? a! iTfltio tknoo oIaaKaI. pusco 1U1 UiOUCG IU UC1 Viblbouo vuvov uiuvuut ic spirits, encourages them in their uje, puts them at convenient places within her territory for the supply and distribution of them, enters largely in the business, calculating the profit therefrom as aiding State, county and municipal treasuries, regulations which would properly be attributable to the police power if used in suppression of the traffic, assume the form of measures tending to support the State's monopoly in the business, act as restrictions upon commerce and infringes the Federal Constitution. If all alcoholic liquors, by whomsoever held, are declared contraband, they c?ase to beloog to commerce and are within the jurisdiction of the police power. But so long as their manufacture, purchase or sale or their use as a beverage in any form or by any person are recognized, they belong to commerce, and are without the domain of the police power The act of 1897, like the act of 18'.)5, is con demned on these principles. Neither of them are within exercise of the police power. Bat whilst it is true that some of the discriminating features are now removed from the dispensary, features admitted to be fatal to its constituiionality, one at least still remains. The markets of this State are closed to the producers in other States. (Minnesota vs. Barber, 13(5 U. S., 320.) They are closed, it is true, to the producers sq this State. But the latter may be under the control of the laws of commerce with the State, rhe former are protected by the interstate commerce law. It is no justification that laws in conflict with interstate commerce press equally on the citizen and the strangBr. (Minnesota vs. Barber.) A resident of the State may under the present dispensary law send his orders to i producer outside of the 8tate for liquors for his own personal use and consumption, ind a limited importation within a restricted period and under an absolute condition is allowed such resident. The producer is Limiieu to tnis. ne cannoi import, ms goous into this State in any other way. The condition for sach importation is this: Any resident who desires to import liquor for his own personal use and consumption, shall Srst certify to the chemist of the South CarDlina college, the quantity and kind ofliquor be wishes to purchase. Stating also that inch proposed purchaser will forward to Columbia, South Carolina, to said chemist, a sample of the liquor. On receipt of the sample the chemist immediately proceeds to Lest it and if found to be pure and free from iny poisonous, hurtful or deleterious matter, tie issues a certificate to that effect, giving names of proposed consignor and consignee ind the quantity and kind of liquor to be imported, sends it free of expense and postpaid to the consignor, and the liquor can be ihipped within 60 days after the date of the jertiiicate, which can be used once only. It will be noted that the use of alcoholic liquors as a beverage is not prohibited, nor is their importation for personal use forbidien. provided Buoh beverages are free from 'poisonous, hurtful and deleterious matter," jther than the alcohol in them. The act provides the essential and conclusive test on this point, the certificate of the ;hemist of the South Carolina college. The ict also declares all alcoholic liquors, not ;ested by the chemist of the South Carolina College and so found to be free "from poilonous, hurtful and deleterious matters," lecessarily matters other thaa tbe alcoholic ngredient9, to be of a detrimental character uid their use and consumption to be againBt the morals, good health and safety of the 3tate. That is to say, withput any regard whatever to their real character, the pres5nce or absence of the certificate is the sole test. This can be sustained only on the fact Lhat it is a valid inspection law. There can be no doubt that a State can jnact laws protecting its citizens in the pur3haae of articles, imported or domestic, from purchasing something they did not intend to buy, or adulterated so as to threaten dissase or death. (Plumly vs. Massachusetts, 155 U. S., 4til.) But it mu3t be a law which protects or at least tends to protect the citisen. It must give him security: if it doe9 not do so absolutely, still it must contribute to secure him. The mode of inspection in this act is by sample Let it be supposed that the sample has bden furnished, has been inspected, aas been approved and that the certificate has been sent to the consignor. What sort of assurance does it give the citizen that this liquor he thereupon receives accords with, jomes up to or in any wise resembles the sample: What protection does r give the citizen from fraud, from a failure to scud liquor according to sample? None whatever It only subjects him to the seizure and forfeiture of his goods, if perchance they should be insepcted. The fraudulent seller is out sf reach. Upon what then must the citizen rely? He can ooly rely upon the business character, standing and integrity of the person from whom he buys, without any regard whatever to the inspection. This so-called inspection, furnishing no ' security to the citizen, cannot thereby ba justified. It can operate only as a restriction upon, hindrance and burden to his acknowledged right to import for his per- < sonal use. It is thus an interference with interstate commerce and in itself void. i Tne language in Mugler vs. Kansas, 123, U. S.,. 023, has some application here: "If a ; statute purporting to have been enacted to , protect the public health, the public morals or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of courts so to abridge thein and thereby give ell'ectto the Constitution." The same mode of inspection by sample i.j ?n WUUIU 3CC111 IU UC U9CU 111 ttll VUM H'JUUIO 13" I sued by the Slate commissiener. (22 stat-1 utos. 541.) j Xn Scott vs. Donald the supreme court dis- J cussing ft sirailtir feature in the act of 1895, says: "To empower a State chemist to pass upon what the law calls 'the alcoholic puriity' of such importations by chemical analyses, can scarcely come within any definttion of a reasonable inspection law." "If then the mode of inspection he not reasonaoie ana be futile, it is ft burden 011 intestate commerce and in itself makes the provisions void. (Railroad Co. vs. Husen, 95 U. S., 405. Walling vs. Michigan, 110 U. S., 410. Minnesota vs. Barber, 130 U. S , 313. Brimmer vs. Robman, 138 U. S., 78.) It i* manifest therefore that the same conclusion must be reached with regard to the dispensary act of 1897, which was reached by the supreme court of the United States, as to the act of 1895, that it is not within the scope and operation of the Wilson act. This being the case, the law laid down in Leisy va. naruin controls tni3 case ana tne attempt 10 forbid the importation and sale of spirituous liquors in original packages must fail. The decision of the supreme court of the Unitel States must control all circuit courts. By this decision it is clear that so long as the State herself engages in the business of importing and selling alcoholic liquors for the purpeses of profit. So long as she recognizes that tie use of alcoholic liquors as a beverage is lawful and can be encouraged. So long fis she seeks a monopoly in supplying these liquors for that use, and in this way looks to au increase in her revenue, she cannot under her constitutional obligations to the other States of this Union, forbid, conlln/lnr anrl Klinlnn Ortm m 111 R11P.ll articles between their citizens and her own. Let a temporary injunction issue as prayed foi in thij bill. Charles II. Simonton, Circuit Judge. May 31, 1897. Hanged Fur Murder, H^nrv White, aged 20, was hanged at Colutnbs, Ga , at 1:32 o'clock Friday afternoon. -He died game. White was executed fnr his share in the slaughter of tbrej policemen and the serious wounding of a fourth in Coluiibusonthe 14th of last October. His companion iu crime was his own father, J. A. White, a drunken shoe maker, who was killed himself while resisting capture after the triple murder. White spent the morning hours with his mother and sisters and his sweetheart, Miss Viola Lambe't, who clung to him faithfully during his trouble. His couus )1 made every possible effort in his behalf, even going to the United States supremecourtand to the State supreme court twice, the last time Friday morning to seek a mandamus compelling Judge Butt to sta7 the execution until the newlyd scrvered testimony cjuld be heard. The result of this effort was giveirin t.h? fnlinwinc telegram received at 11 o'clock: To Sbnry White, carc Jailer Phelps: "The supreme court has refused to grant a mandamus and tie governor refuses to grant a respite. I ha*e done all I can for you and may God nave mercy on your soul. O. J. Thornton." When this telegram was read to the ycuog man, hia faca turned deathly paid and his lips quivered, but he maJu no comment. One of his sisters thre v her arms around him ana said: ''Nov, Henry, don't get nervous; you kno^ you said you would not." He kept his resolution to the la?t moment. Getting Worse and Worse. Mr. James N. Veazey. representing Frank G. Tullidge & Co., distill ers, Cincinnati, is in Columbia at tbe Grand Central. Mr. Veazev has a national reputation e.s a gentleman of authority on all matters pertaining to "trusts"?especially the late whiskey tru9*-. having been callei upon by the Uaited Qtatej court to give expert testimony as to the validity of its character and other matters of importance. Mr. Veazey has just made a trip throughout Pennsylvania and, being a student of the political situation, tells a R3Cord reporter that the laboring elemeat of that state is al most on the verge of desperation. Since McKinley's election, wages have been reduced, mills shut down in all directions, and a general uprising is imminent unless times improve. In many instances laborers are paia in scrip, which is sold to different storeKeepers at a reduction of five to fifteen percent. Mr. Veazey took occision to investigate the deplorable state of affiirsand fouQd the distress so pronounced that he is almost willing to promise a positive overtnrow of Re publicanism in that state. He states further that John R. McLean will succeed Mark Hanna as United States senator in Ohio. Mr. McLean has abandoned his summer home at Bar Harbor, Maine, aad will remain iu Cincinnati and personally conduct the campaign, as well as the editoral columns of the Ciacinnati Eaquirer. ?Columbia Record. Tin XUUm?u mil. Thrt Tillman disDenaarv bill introduc ed in tne Senate at Washington March 16 was reported favorably Friday bj the interstate commerce committee. It provides: "That all fermented, distilled or other intoxicating liquors or liquids transported into any state or territory or remaining therein for use, consumption, sale or storage therein shall, upon arrival within the limits of said State or territory, be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or territory to the same extent and in the same manner as though such liquors or liquids had been produced in such State or territory, and shal.: not ba exempt therefrom by rea son of being introduced therein in nrioirml nanlfjiyps for oriViite US6 Or otherwise, *:Ldsuch 8taie3 shall have absolute control of such liquors or liquids within their borders, by whom soevur produced and for whatever use imported; provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed as affecting the internal revenue la//s of the Uuited States or liquor in transit." [ It is sioiply an extension of tht, 'orig 1 mal package" bill of 1690 known as "n.e vVnsja bill," and J idle or no opposition to its early passage is apprehended. What are Original Packages. Judge Simonton does not appear to J have much helped those who want to < sell l'quor in compaction with the i State. Dispensary Commissioner Vance Wednesday telegraphed tbe in- I ternal revenue department at Wash- t ington inquiring what were consider- I ed ''original packages" within the I meaning of the Wilson law. He re- i ceived the following reply: 1 "All Dacka^es contaLiin? distilled t spirits required to be marked, brand- s ed and stamped under internal reve nue laws are regarded as original ] packages. G. W. Wilson, J "Actiug Commissioner." t That appears to settle the matter. If t private parties wisb to sell haif pints, pints, quarts or gallons, each half i pint, pint, quart or gallon must be 1 imported in a separate branded and I stamped package. Of course there i will be no profit in that business.?\1 Columbia Record. j " the sugar scandal, SENATOR TILLMAN PUSHING HIS PROPOSED INVESTIGATION. He Demands a Straight Veto to Test the Scnao of the Senate as to an Investigation of the R 'cords of Senators. Senator Tillman gave the United States Senate another hour of exciting controversy over the proposed sugar investigation last Thursday. Senator Tillcnan then came forward with another phase of the proposed sugar in vstigation, closing with a motion to discharge the committee on contingent expenses from further consideration of the resolution recently offered by him to investigate the alleged speculation in sugar stocks. The motion contemplated an immediate vote by the senate on the sugar investigation resolution. Mr. Tillman spoke in his usual vehement style, nrrVi i/^Vi offHont. ^ mimVi aHoniimi a *> rl If U1VU OVWiaVWM iUUVU UkVVUblVlA MUU drew crowds to the galleries. He began by presenting a clipping from a Haverhill (N. H.) newspaper, referring to A.he recent speech of Mr. Tillman and adding a query as to whether the proposed sugar inquiry would be supplemented by an inquiry into the charges of ex-Senator Butler in connection with Mr. Tillman's administration of the South Carolina dispensary law. TDfl caarges a?aiD3t mm were siaie, Mr. Tillman said. He had met them before and he read an open letter written to the people of South Carolina, characterizing the charges as slanders. This was an attempt to divert attention from the sugar scandal, the senator declared, but the attempt would fail. He had come from the plough to the governorship of South Carolina, over the prostrate forms of those constituting the old regime,and it had won him many enemies. All the crimes in the decalogue had been charged against him. He had appeal ed to his people and they had sustained him, sending him to the Senate af ter a heated canvass ia which Mr. Butler had sought to "fly blow" his (Tillman's) character. Now the same old eggs were Drought forward. If any man desired to look into his character, then, said Mr. Tillman, he courted the fullest inquiry. And any other Senator against whom tnere was the breath of scandal.should have the charges probed to the bottom and this scandal dispelled. 3a had made no charges against the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Smith,) he declared, but had merely submitted the published charges now before the public, and, since the committee had made no reports on the resolution, Mr. Tillman siid he would now move to discharge the committee from further consideration of the resolution. 4'Sf> that." ha added, with risioc in flection, "Senators can now put them selves on record as to whether they want these charges investigated." Mr. Tillman dropped into his chair, but was quickly on his feet again. He had, ho said, approached the chairman, (Jones of Nevada) of the com mittee on contingent expenses and bad been told by him tnat he was ready to report tiie resolution, but was awaiting the action of the other two members of the committee (Jones of Arkansas and GUllinger of New Ltampshire.) W d /*!/? 1 I ? M ?ni? 4 V* AM AAAl?MAf) WA/I nwni. iur. \JTAiilugoi uuca wuiai vu xuwugui tioa for a statement of the attitude cf the committee, tie being the senior member in the absence of the chairman, Mr. Jones of Nevada. "Every man in public life feels the sting of false charges," he said, "and must the Senate pause every lime such* accusations are brought to spand its time and the money of the United States in pursuing these charges- If this is to be the case, then there would never oe a tariff bill nor any other bill." Mr. Vest suggested that there was a precedent for ignoring charges against the personal character of a Senator. Ee referred to the attitude of Senator 111 ???? iUUriUUUU WUOU auiuycauguiiiuu rrcw proposed against one of his associates, tie nad held that the courts were open for private redress,and that it was not for the Senate to undertake to right a private wrong. There had Deen no dissenting voice from this position, Mr. Vest asserted, aud it was not for the Senate to put aside its public business to attend to tbe pnvai? character of Senators. Mr. Tillman was again on his feet. The newspapers were trying to make a tire in his rear, he said, while he whs engaged in a fire in front. His resolution simply sought to determine whether tne fiaance committee *aa the creature of the ?u?ar trust, whether senators were the "tools and paid agents of the sugar trust," or whether they were here performing their duties as honorable men. Mr. Galiinger proceeding, said the people of each senator's State must pass upon his character. The people of South Carolina had passed on the character of the senator from South Carolina, and that was sufficient vindication without an appeal to the senate. "Can Senator Aldrich and the committee deny a hearing," queried Mr. rill man, "when the paper making the charge oifered to appear and prove the charge?"' Mr. Gallinger said this investigation of charges inignt go on indefinitely. Suppose another paper made another charge." Must the senate start an investigation of the charge and then suppose other charges were made. Must further investigations be started. Was that tne kind or business the senate must embark upon instead of attending to pressing legislation. Mr. Tillman was still standing at his desk, and hurled back the answer: "If these charges are false, then it is Lime to stop the lies spread before the public, this siander of ink, and to punish the men gu.lty of the falsehood; and until you do so you stand convicted before the American people." The time had not arrived, Ml*. (Jal inger proceeded calmly, wben tbe American press was to be muzzled in ,he mannar suggested by the senator 'rom South Carolina. The era of the Spanish inquisition had gone b T, and he men of the press, zealous in their luties, wera not to be dealt with by iuch methods. Mr. Gallinger closed with an earnest srotest against "railroading" the resoution out of the committee ia defiance of precedent and the usual cour,esy prevailing. f Hacira 11\ noil trrvi ? a(t?nf?r>n " igain interjected Mr. Tilltnan, *'tothe 'act tbat your side is railroading ;hrougn a tariff bill, and as soon as it is passed you propose to adjourn, so ;hat if there is to be any sugar investigation it is time to beging it at once." 1 1 *"~ 1 *""' " -?yMr. Qallinger was led into further reply. He referred to the futility of investigations and the humiliation to which senators were subjected in be- I ing brought before the former sugar investigation. He again protested agaicst action which wouid degrade the committee having charge of the 1 resolution. At this stage an exciting colloquy occured which appeared to involve a question of veracity. Mr. Tillman interrupted to state that he had it < from the chairman of the committee < (Jones of Nevada) that he was readv i at any time to report the resolution 1 back. ] Mr. Gallinger said such an assertion J could not be correct, as the commit- I tee had met on the dav of the alleged 1 statement by the chairman, and had 1 not reached a determination. "The chairman told me that he was < ready to report," insisted Mr. Till- 1 man. Here Mr. Jones of Arkansas, the 1 other member of the committee, arose and in positive tones declared: "ThB ' ch&irman could not have made such a 1 statement, as it was not so." "But he did make it," again assert- j ed Mr. Tillman. "Then let him make it here," demanded Mr. Jones. The senators were facing each other, 1 and the exchange was direct ana per- ] sonal. Mr. Tillman said he had seen that the Republican senators had "caucussed at a dinner, and had decid en not to support this investigation. Was this another lie? Democratic senators, also, were said to be opposed to investigation, "But," he added, turning to associates, "if there is rascality we ought to know it. It lays with you, by your votes to be relieved O; the charges before the American 1 people." 1 Mr. Jones of Arkansas, of the com- 1 mittee, gave assurance that the resolution would be reported in due time un 1 less taken away from the committee. 1 "But aside from this," proceeded Mr. ' Jones, "I cannot shut my eyes to \ facts connected with this. I believe the senate of the United States is an 1 honorable body. I believe senators are gentlemen?as a rule. There was ' surpressed laughter at this quaiiflca- J tion. Here Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts de- 1 manded a vote on tha motion and Mr. Gallinger moved to lay the motion on 1 the table. Mr. Tillman again arose. In view of the fact that two members of the committee had give a assurance that the resolution would be reported, he would, ne said, withdraw the motion so that senators could vote on the main question, when presented muxout complications as to committee procedure. - This closcd the incident and the tariff bill was taken up. Federal Appointment*. The President Friday sent the following nominations to the Senate: State?Lawrence To wnsend of Pennsylvania, to be Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States to Portugal. Treasury?Ellis H. Roberts of New York, to be Treasurer of the United States; Conrad N. Jordan of New York, to be Assistant Treasurer of the United States at New York city; Wil liam E. Andrews of Nebraska, to be Auditor of the Treasury Department; William F. Brown of Pennsylvania, to be Auditor for the War Department. Postmasters: North Carolina?Leroy L. Brinkley, Edenton. Mr. Townsend, is a resident of Philadelphia. He was appointed by President Cleveland secretary of the legation at Vienna. He is a brother of Dr. TownEead, superintendent of the Philadelphia mint. The selection is not a political one,although he had the endorsement of the Pennsylvania uounvv/i oi A Good Ana we r. When John Qiincy Adam3 was 80 years old, narrates the Lynn Item, he met in the streets of Boston an old friend, who shook his trembling hand, and said: ' Good morning! And ho w is John Q aincy Adams to-day?" "Inank you," was the ex-President's answer, "John Qiincy Adams himself is well, sir; quite well I thank you. But the house in which he lives at present is becoming dilapidated. Ii is tottering upon its foundation. Time and the seasons have nearly destroyed it. Its roof is pretty well worn out Its walls are much shattered, aad it trembles with every ( wind. The old tenement is becoming almost uninhabitable, and I think John Quincy Adams will have to move out of it soen, but he himself is quite well, sir, quite well." With tbat the venerable sixth president of the United States moved on, with the aid of his staff. Hashing It Up. Tde Senate committee to audit and control the contingent expenses of the Senate, to which was referred the Till man resolution providing ior an in- t vestigation of the charges that Senators have been speculating in sugar stocks, held a meeting Wednesday and decided to take time to look into the charges to a certain extent before reporting back. The fact that Senator Smith, tne only member of the Senate mentioned by name as having engaged in such speculation, Wednesday made denial in the Senate of the charge, was noted in the committee meeting, and this fact, coupled with Senator Aldrich's general denial in behalf of the finance committee, was taken into consideration in connection with the resolution, and there was some talk in the committee of an mdetinite posiponmeni as me wisesi < course. The committee therefore con- i eluded to postpone making any re- t commendation for the present. i Made Tillman No Promise. p Senator Jones, of Nevada, chairman ^ of the senate committee on contingent i expenses, returned to Washington Friday. Referring to the Tillman resolution to investigate the reports that senators have speculated in sugar g stocks, he said that the committee ( would take the question up in good a time, but that so far as he was con- c ' vt/vi Ua V* livuiA^ i n frt _ cerneu uu wumu uut uc <<iuiicu mw u reporting upon a matter of so much ? importance as is this. He declined to r discuss tfeaatar Tillman's reference to t thair interview over the question of reporting the resolution beyond saying when Mr. Tillman came to see him. he had bimpiy told him that he ? would take it up with his colleagues i< of the committee as soon as he could c orftt t.hf>m topflthpr as he had not nrinr ti to that lime baen able to dj. The sen- s ator contends that there has been no t undue delay and that there will be n none. I STATE WILL COMPETE | I -OR THE LIQUOR BUSINE8S IN SOOTH CAROLINA. ? -v -^g Seems to be the Plan?Constabulary Will ( Likely bs Abolished?What Attorney \ ?J General Says?Board of Control* Of course nothing else is being talk*. " 9d of in official, political and other rircles at the State capital just atpres- A 3bt, but the decision of Judge Simon^i^jj ton in the matter of the dteperirt^' ' law. Everybody hereabouts If ipeOT;. M lating as to what course the State wfl! pursue. Tuesday the State official* teemed to have somewhat recovered from the first severe shock and appeared to have considered the situation -."-v jalmly overnight. They were thefre- ' ? fore in somewhat better condition to < talk of the situation Tuesday thaw they were the preceding day. From what could be gathered after bearing all suggestions made it seems practically settled that the policy of the State will be about as follows: An appeal from Judge 8imonton'a decis- | ion will be made, but it is extremdjr unlikely that any effort will be made towards having the judge vacate hi* order of injunction pending that appeal. J udge Simonton could hardly ' i be expected to grant suck a request inasmuch as his decision is so sweep* * ing in its character ana so unqualified in its terms. In the meantime it see?* 4* to be the general purpose to continue the operation of tne dispensaries, ptftr ting down the prices of the liquor tQf the lowest possible figure and enter* inop th? fl?)H nf nnmiMtltinn with Ai whiskey houses outside the Statewho can only ship in original packages Me sale. It is contended that the aiapensary can meet all competition tuooii* fully because it can reduce expend* considerably and besides the profits** ' : present are about 100 per cent TM? ; can be cut down very easily and there is plenty of margin. The first big lopping off of expenses, it is undw* stood, will be the doing away wttfek the constabulary force. This now 'wvfo *VIA flfofn hafmAan &A?I AHA UV/OUO VUU WWfVO WD TT WU f Avj vvv 1W i ? 150,000 annually. It is aaoertuttMl* ^ that already Governor filiate haft* i sued instructions to all the constable* to cease all seizures and ordered the chief constables to report in Ootambia Wednesday for council With, % him. In lieu of the constabulary. 3 it is said, the several cities m. M QfafA mill Ka nAtiAaH Att KUU UMIW TTAik W ?*W??vo * - - ? they will be expected to instruct tbsi? police forces to look oat for all ask* of liquors ia other than original pabk* ages. It ia broadly intimated, but not from the governor, that in caae this is not done the metropolitan polidfrlaw will be applied to the city that fails to do so. It is also contended that the dispefrr i sary will have an advantage over 411 competitors in that it will be able to pur base whiskey in bulk and botflo it, i hile all others will be obli^li^jj lliCMkO tUCll pUlWUdpOQ iU Vllfcinn ywiwaages, being able to sell only in ?ac&. 1 Another contention is- that outside parties cannot purchase, say lOO'Iueff' pints' original packages in one box and sell them separately, but miM' ji sell the box and Its eontents. What there is in either of these positions remains to be seen. It is practically settled that t&flM will be no extra session of the geoprtff 3 assembly. It is held that thia will be a great and useless expense. It is haftt' % that in case the legislature goo* to Columbia now it will 1? -1 tally unprepared to past any kind of an act to relieve the situation, and what is more eaeh ion ' will have his own ideas about n, wt^. the result will be that about sut will be consumed in debate at a heavy cost to the State. Governor Ellberbe was a little nott-' committal Tuesday. He seemed to "'! have made up his mind, having re* covered from the shock of tbepieoed* i ingday. He stated to a representative: of The State that Wednesday hewoMkE . 'J make a brief statement coveting the % attitude of the State in regardtothe . a present situation. Governor Ellerbe has conferred with , the members of his cabinet and with the attorney general and has alao eon- f ferred with Ibe members of the 8Mb board of control. Attorney General Barber returnedto the city Tuesday at 1 o'clock, ife was seen shortly afterwards by several :i representatives of the pzess to whom be made the following statement: ^ "I don't know what course the for-, ernor will pursue. So far as the leg* aspect of the case is concerned.you may say that this office has not deter- mined at this early hour after the rendition of the judgment just what steps will ba taken. This is a temporary order of injunction and unaertne United States statute an appeal from it may be taken to the circuit court of appeals. This course may be adopted. In the meantime the answer of the 3 defendants will be filed on or beta* < : next Monday as required by tiramfepoena and if a final order can be had at a sufficiently early date it ifl-p<Mi? ; ble that we may wait for that and if it is against us take an appeal from.it directly to the supreme court of the United States. In any event it teems to me that the question involved will ? 1 V>1? tka IHa anaiiy uttvo iu uu uouaucu i preme court." ; *"3 ''How about the running of the dispensary and the sales of liquor in the neantime?" . - 1 "Well, as to the running of the dlspensary that is for the State board of control to say, and as to the seizure )f liquors tnat is a matter for the gotjrnor, but of course I presume his ex;allency will strictly obey the ordsr >f tbe court. And I have never ad* rised the disregarding of any jud*nent and would not advise any sncn hing in this case." M- nnniinninir aid that 1 Jill, iioiwij uuunuv.^5, ie could only speak of the legal a*- c >ect of the situation. The State diatensary is going ahead shipping out arge orders of liquors. Democratic Gain In BUasoarl. '1 Returns from the first Missouai oonressional district indicate that Lloyd Dam.) is elected over Olark (Rep.) oy plurality of 5,000. The total vote ast was about 80 per cent, of that ast last JNovemoer. jULoya ? lannibal, Clark's home, by 241 pluality, a Democratic gain of 206 ovei he November election. His First Vote. Senator McLaurin's first vote in the lenate was in favor of the Democrat* 3 amendment to reduce the duties on rockeryware from 60 and 66 cental - OA ? QS nonta HlS ViltaS tfldly J Ol/ AUU UV vwon how that he is not a protectionist, alhcugra he favors protection to raw aaterial as a means of relief to th* armers and produoers, * " '"V.