Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-10-02
Neutrality-suspicious. .. 1888
Practical Prohibition.

"a Good Templar " in Loudoun coun-
~, bearing a good Virginia name, and
being no doubt a practical man, has sent
to us the following note, which explains
itself:
Ia tie Editor Of the DisDGtch:
Under the decision OF the Supreme
Court Of the United States that the po-
lice powers of State cannot extend to
interference with the transportation OF
articles, can intoxicating liquors be
brought into n local-OptlOn section OF
this state, and be sold in the original
package
Does the Government grant licenses
to sell intoxicating liquors, or does 1t
simply derive revenue upon licenses
already issued bv the State
We would be glad to be informed on
these points through the columns of the
DisDatch, as a difference of opinion
exists. COOP TRHPLAR.
In q Massachusetts case the United
States Supreme Court decided years ago
that the United States did not grant to
liquor dealers licenses that would operate
TO render nugatory the laws Of State
either licensing or prohibiting the sale Of
liquor This was a case which arose under
the internal-revenue laws, a dealer claim
ing the rightunder his Federal license to
sell spirituous liquors in Massachusetts,
in violation of the State laws. We have
no reason to doubt that the same court
would render the same decision now.
Nevertheless we are bound to concede
that there is a good deal 10 be said on
the other side OF the question. The
New York Toicc, tho national organ of
the Prohibitionists, contends-and with
great plausbility of argument-that
prohibition IS q national question for
the reason that the Supreme Court
Of tho United States on March -,
1883, in the case Of BOvMAS Bao-
T1IERs as. Cincinnati and Northwestern
Railway Company, decided that the
right Of transportation from one State
10 another includes by necessary impli-
cation the right Of the importer to sollli-
Quors in unbroken packages at the place
where the transportation terminated
and where the liquor was delivered TO the
consignee. We repeat that this opinion
does not coincide with our own but it
may possibly be q correct one and ours
an incorrect one. So we will state for the
information Of our Leesburg correspOn-
dent the grounds upon which The Voice
bases its opinion. 1t AYERS that the fol-
lowing paragraph was taken word for
word from a printed opinion sent TO it
10y the Clerk of the Supreme Court of
the United States The case hinged, rs
We have said, upon the question how far
the police powers of state extend. 1t
is agreed that the decision was that they
did not extend to interference with trans
portation from ono State to another.
But the court, in what was no doubt an
OJRoy dictUD1, added:
cit is easier to think that the right of
importation from abroad and OF trans
portation from one State 10 another In
cludes by necessary implication the right
OF the importer 10 sell IN unbrOken pack
ages at the place where the transit ter
minated for the very purpose and mo-
tive Of that branch of commerce which
consists in transportation is that other
and subsequent act which consists in
the sale and exchange of the com
moditios transported. Such indeed was
the point decided in the case of
Brown rs. Maryland u Wheat, 4l9) as
to foreign commerce. with the express
statement, in the opinion OF Chief Justice
Marshall, that the conclusion would be
the same in case Of commerce among
the States.
The Potce relies upon the foregoing,
hut we do not consider it conclusive.
However, the following is stronger.
Justices WAITE, GRAY. and HARLAN, in
their dissenting opinion in this same
BOWMAN case. seem TO base the better
part OF their argument on the suppose
ton that the first sale in unbroken pack
oges is involved as part of the act of
transportation, which the court decides
the State is unable to forbid. We quote
from the dissenting opinion as follows:
eff, therefore, as the court now de-
cides, the Constitution gives the right to
transport intoxicating liquors into Iowa
from another State, and If that right
carries with it. as one of its essential in
gradients, authority@in the consignee
10 sell or exchange such articles after
they are so brought in and while in his
possession in the original packages, it is
manifest that the regulation forbidding
sales OF Intoxicating liquors within the
State for other than medicinal, mechani-
cal. culinary, or sacramentaf purposes,
and then only under permit from a
board OF supervisors, will be of little
practical value. In this view any one
eyena citizen Of Iowa desiring to sell
intoxicating liquors in that State need
only arrange TO have them delivered to
him from some point in another State in
packages OF varying sizes as may suit
customers"
"lf, say the boys at school, sis a
long letter" The first "if tells what
the court decided. The second "if
does not, but merely states what would |
follow ii the court did render such de-