Audubon County Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Audubon Co., Iowa) 1885-1894, 1889-02-14

evil ana TO regulate aud protect IL Tor such
uses as are beneficial, or at least not hurt
full Tho statue forbids the sale of such
liquors tor use ms beverage, and prescrbes
severe penalties for violations of Its provis-
ions. But 1t allows sale of the article for
use as u medicine and In the arts and for
culinary and sacramento purposes, and pre-
scrlbes certain limitations and restrictions
upon the traffic for these uses. In their
scope and object these statutes are not mate
rally different from those which have been
enn sted for the restriction of tho sale Of pols-
ons and the regulation of the storage, hand
ling and use of explosives and other articles
dangerous to tho lives and property of tho
people or delcterious 10 society, and they
were enacted In the exercise OF tho same
power, viz. the police power OF the state.
That the state has tho power 10 enact such
legislation s.hot now question OF doubt,
and that tho legislature Is the sole Judge Of
the necessity for their enactment is equally
clear. Laws having the same general OBJ
jects In view have probably been enacted In
every state In tho union and their validity
has seldom been questioned. The validity
OF thor particular statutes has frequently
been declared by this court and II has been
adJudged by the highest tribunal In the ma
ton that statutes having the same specific
object are not In conflict with any provisions
of the federal constitution, Muglor vs.. Kan
sas, l2S U. 5. 623. The statutes called In
question In tho license cases, 9Th Howard,
50i worc not essentially different In their
object from those of this state They were
enacted for the purpose of mitigating and to
s.Nfk t,tn
perance. The statute of Massachusetts, pro-
hibitcd the traffic In intoxicating liquors by
all persons except those holding license
from the county commissioners, and licensed
vendors were forbidden to sell In quantities
less than twcnty-eiRht gallons in any single
sale. Under ia provisions no person was en-
titled as matter OF right TO receive license,
| but tho question whether any licenses should
be granted In the county was left entirely TO
the discretion of the commissioners.
A person who did not hold n license, en-
| gagcd In the business of selling foreign liz.
| uors imported into the United States under
| the statutes thereof. IIo was indicted and
| convicted In the state courts of a violation of
the statute of the state. Tho other cases
were under similar statutes Of the states Of
volved similar states of fact. The causes be-
Ing removed to the supreme court, the judy
p,ents were affirmed. Substantially the same
claim of right was urged In those cases that
is here alleged by the defendant, viz, that as
the liquors were transported into the state
under tho authority of the federal constltu-
ton and statutes, 1t was not competent for
the state to prohibit their sale or regulate
the manner In which It should be conducted
But the court held that tho statute were not
In their opinion In conflict with the
commercial provisions OF tho federal con-
stitution. And II appears TO us that this
Is necessarily so. when tho power of the
state to legislate with reference to the sub
jeot matter is conceded. 4 follows necessarily
we think that all property within the state Is
subject to the regulations II has enacted.
When property purchased in another state Is
transported to this state and then delivered
to tho purchaser to be used or consumed
within the state tho transaction in so far as II
Is governed by the provisions for tho regula-
ton of commerce among the states is at an
end. The sale and delivery are then con.
summated, and the property becomes at once
subject to the laws which tho state has en-
acted governing its uso or disposition. 1t IL
true that some things are said by the court In
Bowman vs.. the Railway Co., 125 U. s., 465,
which appear to be In conflict with that view.
But we do not understand that tho question
was involved or decided In that case. The
sole question involved was rs to tho validity
of certain provisions of the statute which
forbade common carriers from transporting
to any point within the state intoxicating
liquors unless they had been furnished will
the written evidence OF the right of the con
signee to sell the same In the state. 1t Is con
ceded that that subject is beyond the
power of tho state to legislato upon. But II
by no means follows that the owner has the
right after the property has been delivered
to him In the state to use or dispose Of 1t In
} manner different from that prescribed b,
the sale or use OF such property generally
1t fails from these considerations that on dc
PENDANTS appeal the judgment should be af
hrmcd, while on plaintiffs appeal 1t will be
reversed.