Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1888-04-26
Prohibition 8 Limit,

In deciding in the Bowman case that
Iowa could not prohibit the importa-
ton of liquor from another State the
Supreme Court said that the question
whether the State could prohibit the
importer or cOnsignee from selling the
imported liquors in the original pack
ages did not arise in that case. But i'm
reaching its conclusion the decision re-
fers to former one Brown vs.. Mary
land, IL Wheat), i'm which the right to
sell liquor imported from foreign coun-
tries in spite of State law had been
affirmed by the Supreme Court as in
The express statement of Chief Justice
Marshall i'm that former decision, that
the conclusion would be the same as to
both interstate commerce and foreign
commerce, is also cited in the Bowman
decision. The three dissenting JUS
tices, Waite, Gray and Harlan, there
fore coupled the two decisions together
and based their dissent on the ground
that the right to import in spite OF
State law, as affirmed by the court,
would, If that right carried with 1t the
right to sell in original packages in
spite of State law. render mugatorv
the States conceded right to prohibit
the liquor traffic within it's own bord-
ers.
Nevertheless, so stands the. later de-
cision affirming the interstate right to
import in spite of State law, and back
of that stands the former decision af-
firming this same right as to foreign
commerce, and declaring that this right
includes the right to sell IN original
packages in spite of State law.
Thus, after unanimously affirming
the States authority to prohibit the
manufacture or sale of liquors, the
Supreme Court limits the States police
power In this respect to strictly intern
al manufacture and traffic. It can pro-
hibit distilling and brewing for con-
sumption within the State and thus
keep out of consumption all but i'm
ported liquors. 1t can outlaw all liquor
selling except in original imported
packages by the importers. 1t can
deprive itself and its municipalities Of
all revenue and Its people of all profit
from home liquor production or traffic
in homemade liquors. but cannot keep
its people from enriching outside pro-
ducers by drinking all they feel able
to buy from importers of hal:pint
TASKS and other "original packages"
If the Constitution, in excluding
State authority from all interference
with interstate commerce or the regu-
lation thereof, goes this far, does it not
evidently, and for precisely the same
constitutional purpose, forbid State
to outlaw the production and sale CT
liquor for export? If the freedom Of
interstate commerce from the impedi-
ment of State regulation requires that
a States police power over the health
and morals of its own people shall not
extend to the obstruction or prohibition
of interstate traffic in liquors. the same
requirement applies as obviously to
exports as to imports. If a States po-
lice authority cannot obstruct inter-
state commerce to protect it's own citi-
zens, it certainly cannot do 40 to protect
not subject to it's authority
nor under its protection.
This later decision rests on former
ones of such long standing and high
that there is no prospect OF q
reversal of any one of them i'm our day
and generation. Nor will anything
but the triumph Of Irrational prohibition
impressed on Congressional legislation
curtail the force and effect of these de-
cisions. AS they stand they leave
State prohibition of the liquor traffic
powerless and prostrate.-Post Dss-
patch.