National Republican., 1888-03-19
Secretary Maynard ONerrules the SUI
nrnme Court,

nc COLLECTOR vi tUHlOHlS w Ibhti'
lately asked the Treasury Department
whether, after imported liquors were
withdrawn from bOud in the custom-house,
the authorities could protect these liquors
from seizure under state law so long as
they remain in the original packages As
sstant Secretary Maynard answered as fol-
Cows:
when the duties have been paid and the
goods withdrawn from the custody OF the Gus
toms officials, the jurisdiction Of the depart
ment ceases and any question which may
thereafter arise between the owner of the
goods and the municipal or State authorities
is one in which the department has no interest
and upon which II cannot express an opinion.
The Secretary was wrong unless the dccis-
ions Of the Supreme Court are to he nulli-
fled, and the only remedy in this case is to
adopt the plan suggested by the NATIONAL
REPuBLiCAN-that Is, to make the duties on
foreign liquors practically prohlbitory, per-
init no importations except In large pack
ages, in bulk, and have most stringent exam
nations as to the purity " the articles i'm
ported
Under the present law liquors eau b. i'm
ported in such small packages rs to prac
llGAIlN allON lIltl SURE NJ Ttluil luuS uDIN
eating state prohibition laws
To show that Secretary Maynard has de-
cidcd wrong in this case, it is only necessary
To reproduce two decisions Of the Supreme
Court heretofore quoted in the NATIONAL
REPUBLICAN,. We extract from our issue of
July 12, 1887
The state of Maryland in 1891 passed an act
raising revenue for the state, and the second
section read, THAT all importers of foreign
articles or commodities. Of dry goods, wares,
or merchandise, by bale or package, or of
wine, rum, brandy, whisky. and other distilled
spirituous liquors. &c, and other persons sell
ing the same by wholesale, bale OF package,
hogshead, barrel or fierce, shall before they
are authorized to sell take out u license" sc.
The penalty was forfeiture of the goods and
fine collectible by indictment.
The firm of Brown Brothers It Co, of Balti-
more, importers, refused to pay the liccuse
We're indicted and fined in the Baltimore court
carried the case up to the Maryland court of
appeals, which affirmed the decision of the
! court below, and finally TO the supreme Court
| of the United states.
After elaborate argument, Roger y. ranoy
being attorney for Brown Brothers Il Co.,
! the case was decided Chief Justice Mar
! shall delivered the opinion of the court us
| Wharton, il0), treating the subject exhaus
! lively. He upheld both claims made by the
| plaintiffs, and held that the state had no
| right TO impose restrictions on commerce, lie
said. No goods would be imported II none
| could be sold. The right to sell Is
connected with the payment of duties" on
the power of Congress to control commerce
Justice Marshall said: The power is cock
tensive with the subject on which II acts.
Congress has a right not only to au.
thoriZe importation, but to authorize the i'm.
| porter To sell. " What does the i'm
porter purchase when he pays duties ii he
does not purchase the privilege to sel!''
Again. on August 2d, the NATIONAL RE-
PUBLICAN contained the following:
Suits We're brought before the Supreme
Court and decided in 1911, Mr.. fancy then he
ing chief Justice, against the states of Massa
chusetts, Rhode Island and New Hampshire
involving the right Of the state TO prohibit the
sales of imported liquors In original imported
packages.
These suits were all tried together, as the
same principles We're at stake in each. They
are known as The license cases, and are re-
ported jth Howard, jOi. 80.
From the opinion delivered hy.e1iilSGySf 1iilSGyf Justice
T,saey, found on page i;2' we extract the fol.
lowing, ---
Each of the cases has arisen upon state
laws passed for the purpose of dlSrouraging
the use of ardent spirits within their rcspec-
tie, territories by prohibiting their sale in
small quantities and without licenses pre-
viollsly obtained from the state authorities.
The question Is how far a state may
regulate or prohibit the sale of ardent spirits,
the importation of which from foreign cOun.
tries has been authorized by Congress Is
such law a regulation of foreign commerce
or of the internal traffic Of the stateS !"
| This question came directly before the court
| for the first time IN the case of Brown vs., The
| state of Maryland l2 Wheaton, il0l, Aud the
court there held that an article authorized by
a law Of Congress to be imported continued to
he q part of the foreign commerce Of the coun-
try while II remained In the hands OF the i'm.
porter for sale in the original bale, package, or
vessel in which II was imported; that the au'
thOrity given to import necessarily carried
with It the right to sell the imported
article in the form and shape In
which It was imported
Adopting, therefore, the rule as laid down in
Brown VS.. State of Maryland, ! proceed To
apply IL to the eases of Massachusetts and
Rhode Island The laws of Congress regula-
ting foreign commerce authorize the impor'
tation of spirits, distilled liquors and brandy
IN casks or vessels not containing less than II
certain quantity, specified In the laws upon
| this subject. Now, If the state laws In
question came in collision with those acts of
Congress, and prevented or obstructed the
importation or sale of these articles by the
importer in the original caSk or vessel In
which they We're imported, II would be the
duty of this court Ia declare them void.
| Congress, under It's general power 10 regulate
| commerce with foreign nations, may pre-
scribe what article of merchandise may be-
admitted and what excluded, and may there
fore admit or not rs IL shall deem best the
importation of ardent spirits; and masmuc
as the laws Of Congress authorize their i'm
purtntion no state has right to prohibit
their introduction The state laws act alto
gcther upon the retail or domestic traffic with
In their respective borders.
Either two Supreme Court, Of the United
States, including ChcfJusticGs Marshall and
Tauey, did not know the law, or Secretary
Maynard mistakes 1t, Under existing law,
the executive departments are bound tC
protect the importer in the possession and
sale Of any liquors he may hold or offer fol
sale in mhrokcn imported packages, ,and Sec
rctOIy Maynard had better read those decis
iuIs and revise his rulings
No Democratic Margin in Tennessee
The Memphis Tenn .lralauche, paper
owned and edited by Mr. Phelan, the rep
rescntativc IN Congress from the tenth
Tennessee district, says;
| The Avalanche regrets To observe an in