Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1888-04-13
From the Chicago Tribune.


The full text of the decision of the fed
efal Supreme Court in the Bowman case
shows that the justices went much fur
Their than was indicated IL the Geographic
synops, OF the opinion, and seem to hold
! that liquors cannot ouly be imported into
Iowa from other States Tor personal use,
but that The importer may offer them for
sale aud engage in the open traffic without
being amenable to the state prohibitory
law. If sucn is the conclusion Of the Su-
preme Court 1t Will prove sure blow to
! prohibition. The point as 10 the sale Of
! liquor once imported into Iowa was MT
necessarily Involved in the Bowman case
aud not directly passed upon by the court,
| but the Justices rendering the majority
opinion made an intimatiou regarding it
whlch seems almost conclusive The
! justices in the minorlty-Waite, Gray and
| HariHn-treated the majority opinion as
! holding that LOU RS taken into the State
could be sold IN uubroken packages by
| the importer, and this, in fact, was one Of
the chef grounds Of their dissent They
| sad
If therefore, as the court now decides,
| the constitution gives he right 70 trans
| port intoxicating liquor INTO Iowa from
another State, and ii that right carries
! with it ~ one Of its essential ingredients
authority in the consignee To sell or eX-
| change such articles after they are so
| brought in and while in the original pack
ages it is manifest that the regulation
| forbidding sales of intoxicating liquor
| within the STATE for other than medicinal,
! CuIln iry, mechanical or sacramenthl pur-
| poses, aud then only under permit from
| a board Of supervisors, Will be Of little
prac ical value.
The Dissenting justices refused to unite
| in The opinion of the court hecause they
! regard the ma jurlty ruling rs virtual
overthrow or breaking down of the Iowa
| prohibitOry law. They sad that under
| it "any one-eveu cit zen of Io'ya-deeir
ing to sell Intoxicating liquors IN that
| State need only arrange to have them de
| livered te him from some point in another
| State IN packages of varying sizes, as NAV
suit his customers, If such Is the mean
| ing OF the court IL certainly opens the way
| for the saloon ira f1ic in Iowa, for nothing
could be easier than TO put up liquors for
the Iowa trade in bottles containing any
number OF drinks desired, and then ship
| hem into that State for "-ae in
| the original packages The Tribune
| did not at first think the ruling OF the
supreme Court had gone to TINS extent in
| an huriZing sales of imported liquors, but
| the minority justices so understand The
decision and the full text OF the opinion
show that strong language TO the same
effect was used 10y the majority. The
| court, NOicinG the opinion Of The major
ity OF the justices, said
| 1t Is easier to think that the right OF i'm
| portatiUn from abroad, aud of transpOrta-
ton from one > ate to another, Includes,
| by necessary implication, the riEht OF the
lmpU Ter to sell III uubrokeu packages at
the place where the transit terminates ;
for the purpose aud motive OF that branch
OF Commerce which cous SITS in tran~pu
| cation Is that other and sub-t qdent act OF
commerce which consists IN the sale and
exchange of the commodities trans ported
| such indeed was the point dt cidtd III the
cas-. OF Brown VS.. Maryland, II Wheat
40 ~ TO foreign commerce, with the eX-
press statement in the opinion OF Chtt
Justice NJ srshall that the conclusion
| would be the same in Il case Ot commerce
among the States. Bat it is not necessary
now To EXPIRE IS any opinion upon that
point. because tn, question does not arise
IN the presen, case.
| Although an bitter diCtILn, this state
meut can hardly be COILS Iutd to mean
anything else than the opinion OF the
court that Liquors imported from other
States or foreign countries can he sold
freely in Iowa in the original packages.
In the Brown vs.. Maryland case to which
the court now alludts apptoVlnEly Cnlet-
Justi Marshall said: sale is the object
of lmpnrtatiO ION, aud is an essential ingred-
lent IN that intercOul Sc of Nhlch importa
an ingredient, as indispensable TO the en-
lire thing, then, importation. Ii must
. be considered rs a component part OF the
power ID regulate commerce fut'lng
articles imported from other Stats or
from foreign countries under tine eXclu-
sive authority of Congress. both MS To
trans portaIlOn and sale while IN the
. original packages IL would seem that the
decision of the Supreme Court practically
strips the Iowa prohIbitorS law Of all force
or eff CT, siuce II would be only farcical
> for The State to close its own breweries aud
di~tllleries and punish the manufacture
aud sale of domestic liquuGs while lJud
of Intoxicating drink poured IN from the
outside aud WAS openly sold III unbrukeu
packages containing any number OF dlams
, desired. Others beside prunlbltoulSts
will regret that The Supreme Court itlt
: Compelled to 20 so far III its decision and
, To cripple SO seriously tie police power OF
Iowa in dealing with the liquor traffic.