Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-02-17
Co,ninc Homo 70 Them.

Wonders will never cease. n Unltcd
states senator from Iowa. Mr. WILSON he-
publican, last week quoted In the Senate
Cbief-Jnstlce TASEY as authority for the
contention that the states have some rights
which the United states Government Is
"bound 10 respect" Chiei-Juslice TANEY's
memory has been reviled by almost
every penny-whistle lawyer in the Re-
publican party, aud he has ten thou
sand times been fslsely charged With
having said In the opinion Ia the DaED-
SCOTT case that negroes bad no rights
which white men were bound 20 respect,
whereas he only said that there were certain
white men who considered That negroes had
no rights which the whites were bound to
respect
What IS Mr.. WHsoS's grieyancet Why
fsit thst he deems It his duty 70 stand up Ter
the reserved rights Of the stotes3 Because
the Supreme Court Of the United states by
majority Of its members recently held that
the liquor law Of Iowa was invalid, for the
reason that II was regulation q Interstate
commerce and al infringement upon the eX'
ecutlye power Of Congress g. regulate COM
merce between the States. The reader viii
be curious to see the law thus pronounced
unconstitutional. The following extract
from It tells the whole story:
"If auy express company, railway COM
pany, or any person, knowingly bring
within this state for any person or persons or
corporation. or shall knowingly transport or
convey between points or from one place TO
another in this State for any other person or
persons or corporation. any intoxicating
liquors without first having been furnished
certificate THAT the person has
right to sell III, any agent Of such company,
corporation. or person so Offending, snail,
upon conviction thereof, be fined in the sum
OF 300 for each offence"
Under this Jaw occurred the case OF Bow.
mans Us. The Chicago and Northwestern
Railroad Company. Mf. Justice GRAY stated
the facts as follows;
at appears upon the face OF the declara-
ration that the plaintiffs, one OF whom IS
citizen OF lOwa-made application 10 the
Board OF Supervisors Of Marshall county, IN
that State. for permission under the statute
10 buy and sell in that county intoxicating
liquors for medic culinary, mechanical,
and sacramento purposes, and that their APP
plication was rejected. Thew then resorted
70 lDt fNDtQltuA VI bUNtNE ofNNt bHAANi1 VI
beer in Chicago and rendering them TO the rail-
road company for trans ortation to the same
county without furnishing the certificate re-
Quired by the laws oi Iowa. The refusal OF
the company 20 transport this beer into Iowa
IN violation Of her laws Is the basis OF the
present suit. The plaintiffs claim damages
upon the ground that they conld have sold
this beer In that State at price In advance
OF what It cost them"
The Supreme Court held that the railway
company was bound to carry the liquor into
Iowa, the law OF that State above quoted be-
ing unconstitutional. And now northern
State groans because she has no " reserved
rights "-because, instead OF being "soVe-
reign State" she is no better than "rebel"
State, and can no more help herself when
bound In the chains which the northern PEG.
pie forged for the humiliation OF the southern
people.
The following paragraph will explain the
effect OF the decision NC are considering
"Since the saloons were closed In this
city fan Iowa ethyl over year ago liquor
has been beautifully supplied from CoTIng-
ton, Neb., lust across the river, aud TO sup
ply this trade no less than twenty transporta-
ton companies we're Incorporated under
the laws Of the State, the object, As set forth
in the articles Of incorporation, beng the
transportation OF goods and merchandise
between Covington and Sioux City. Each
OF these companies have officers and are do
ing q thriving business, delivering beer IN
any quantity from bottle TO barrel, claiming
interstate law protected them In the traffic."
The reader will see that Iows's prohibit
tory nquor law Il nothing worth. The
United States Supreme Court has rendered
Il null and void SO far as transporting liquor
into Iowa from another State is concerned.
The dissenting opinion In that court fully
recognizes that such is the inevitable effect
OF the decision. IL says:
"Ii, therefore, as the court now decides,
the Constitution gives the right TO transport
Intoxicating liquors Into Iowa from another
State, and N that right carries with II, as one
Of its essential ingredients, authority, In the
consigRee, 10 sell OF exchange such articles,
after they are so brought in, and while IN his
possession, In the original packages, 1t Is
manifest that the regulation forbidding sales
OF intoxicating liquors within the State for
other than medicinal, mechanical, culinary,
or sacramental purposes. and then only
under permit from board Of supervisors,
will be VI httle practical value. la this
view any one-eyen a citizen OF Iowa-de-
string 10 sell intoxIcAtioug liquors IN
that State need only arrange 10 have
them delivered TO him from some
point I'm another State, In packages
Of varying sizes, as may suit customers.
or, he may erect hts manufacturing estaO.
lishment or warehouse Just across the Iowa
liue, In come State having different public
policy, and thence, with wagons, transport
liquors into Iowa In original packages. IL
the State arraigns him fer violation OF her
laws he may clsln--and, under the princi-
ples OF the present decision, II may become
difficult 10 dispute the claim-that. although
auch laws were enacted solely 10 protect the
health and morals OF the people, and to pro-
pota peace and good order among them, and
although they ate fairly adapted 10 accom-
piish those objects. yet the Constitution OF
the United States, without any action upon
the part OF Congress, secures 10 him the right
10 bring or receive from other States intoxi.
eating liquors in original packages, and TO
sell them. while held by him IN such pack
ages. 10 all choosing to buy"
The extract above quoted-next to the last
one shows that citizens OF Iowa updeDtand
their rights under the decision aud have set
the State law al defiance. As remedy for
this deplofsble condition Of things Mr.. WILL
SON has offered bill In the United states
sensts which gives the consent OF Congress
10 the passage by any State OF law forbid
Sing the bringing OF liquor into such State.
\ he feels that Iowa Is conquered State, and
be proposes Reconstruction measure. "The
iruII be eats is Of the tree be pIsnted"; for
although the provision which is relied upon
10 support the decision in question has
always been in the Constitution, II never be-
fore had such . construction put upon IL.
------------------------