Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1888-04-06

where lie trhinc still has legal rIRhf,
There were Just two very serious points
Of dispute left open by the December de-
cision, one being the right Of State to
prohibit the importation OF liquor into its
borders and the other being its right to
prohibit the manufacture of liquor within
It's borders for export. The first of these
points ia decided against the Prohibitionists
by last Mondays decision.
Although not touching the principle,
this decision is in effect very serious mat
ter. 1t forbids Prohibition States the right
of putting an embargo upon the impor,a'
tion OF liquors. or course this opens the
door for successful violations on n large
scale. II liquor may legally he got into a
Prohibition State without being subject to
seizure while in transit, it can be legally
delivered to would.be viulators all through
the State, There Is then no sucl, thing
possible as striking Mt the basis of supply.
When the decision was made il was in
stanily realized by the shrewd friends OF
Prohibition that the occasion had become
imperative for making the Prohibition
fight upon national lines exclusively,
Under this decision no State Prohibition
law can be framed that will project State
from outside interference so long M the
Federal Government fails to pars Prohibi-
ton laws of national application.
MIR. INGALLS, BILL.
There is now pending in the Senate n
bill introduced early in the session by Mr..
Ingalls, Of Kansas, which il Is thought, il
passed, overcome the new emergency raised
by this decision. The following is the text
of the Ingalls, bill:
"Be il enacted BY the Senate and House O.,
Representatives ofhe United States Of Amer
ica in Congress assembled, That Section 3, of
AN act enutled. An act to regulate com
merce,' approved Feb. 4, A. d. 1887, be, and
the same is, hereby amended 40 a. 10 add
thereto the following, TO wit: Prorided.
That any rrlicie Of commerce, the manu-
facture and sale OF which are prohibited
within any State by the laws thereof, sha II
not be transported or conveyed into such
State from pny railroad or other common
carrier, but this shalt not be held tn pro-
hibit the transportation OF sueh article ol
commerce rs aforesaid through such State
ns aforesaid prohibiting the sale aud man
nfacture thereof to any other Stale or Ter
ritory."
Senator Igalls said 10 me that lie had in
troduced the bill by request OF some lem
perance body of his State, but that he had
not made study either OF the bill or the
Supreme Court decision. He therefore
had no opinion TO express about the case
Other Senators and Congressmen. how
ever, had very decided opinions.
A FEDERAL AMENDMENT REQUIRED.
Senator Blair OF New Hamp.lire though
the decision showed indisputably the nee.
essity of what he has been urging for TIN
last dozen years-a National Constitution,
nj Prohibition Amendment. "Withou
scuh an amendment" said he. "you nigh
IA well try 10 mop up the ocean as try l.
abolish the liquor traffic.
Congressman Kerr of Iowa said "Ther
is not question in my mind but that j
will he necessary 10 pas y law OF Congres
providing that, when under the laws of
State the railroads Of State are prohibi.
ted from transporting liquors without
permit of the county authorities, such pro
hibition shall make il unlawful for an in
teI-Sia'e railroad 10 transport liquors i
the State without such permit. We appre
hemded jusl the present difficulty. wss
member Of The Iowa State Legislature b
which the law WAS oassed. In the fir
section The right to import was not deniet
because we doubted our right TO deny il.
"Snch decisions as this show the neces
sity Of action by the Government on u
matters within the sphere Of national jur
isliciIon for the suppression OF the liqut
traffic. The Federal Constitution confe
ample power on Congress TO harmonize I'll
national policy with whatever policy ma
be ndop'ed by the Stntes."
Mr.. Kerr thought the ingalls, bill WI
not Just what il should be, for IL msde !
provision Tor the transportation OF liquo
for medicinal, mechanical or scientific pu
poses, In other respects lie thought Il
hill was all right,
FEDERAL AND STAFF POWERS.
Congressman Owen OF Indiana SAID
"Undoubledly this decision will have
disadvantageous effert on State prohib
tory laws, but the decision is sound on
and IL In harmony with the structure
our Government. The line OF demaik
ion between the authority Of the Stale al
the Federal Government Is often III def
ed. Especially is there tendency for 1
State 10 encronch on the Federal pow
when Congress or the Supreme Court
dominated by States Righlsmen. But
far back as 1921 the Supreme Court d
cided that no State law could inlerir
with Interstate commerce, aud in lS
Justice Taney, even he OF bred Scott fam
affirmed The decision Of 1891 aud add
that no State could prevent the introdnc
ION into the State and sale in nnbrok
packages of custom duty articles. II
proposed that congress grant the States I
! power TO prohibit obnoxious commer'
, but evidently the Supreme Court would
\ such a law aside. Sixty years OF deciri
: in this Court are not going Ia be overrul,
4 II the nation yields TO this inirnction
authority by The States, then other Inira'
ions will follow, and ultimately we "
disappear rs n nation and become n co
federation OF States. The Bow man dec
a ion is the law of land, and again nal
!. II apparent that State Prohibition cam
!. be com plele Huccess. Qnly n RaIiol
y enactment can he efieclual,
Senator Wilson Of Iowa thought the I
clsion might make some trouble in the e
q iorcement Of prohibilory laws, but he
l;eyed the lpgallS bill or similar q