The state herald., 1890-05-09
IMPORTANT FEDERAL DECISION

The United States Supreme Court
Holds the Seizure Of Liquorin Orig
inal Packages to be UnconstitutionaI
Three Judges Dissent.
WAsnINGToN, d. G., April S0.-The
United States Supreme Court, through
Chief Justice Fuller, to-day rendered NJ
opinion adverse to tho constitutionality o.
State laws providing for the seizure o.
liquor brought into the State In origina
packages. Such laws, the court holds
are IN interference with the interstate
commerce law. After tho liquor become,
the property OF the importer the Stat,
may, under its police powers, regulate ol
prohibit sale, but II has no power In thu
absence Of express Congressional author
ity to prohibit the transportation Of the
article from another State aud Its deliv.
cry to tho importer The case in which
the decision was made was that of Gu.
Leidy & Co., plaintiffs in error, VS.. A. j
Hardin. 1t was brought here on up
peal from the Supreme Court of Iowa, ant
this court reverses tho decision of the
State court. Justices Gray, Harlan ant
Brewer dissented.
Tho Chief Justice, In delivering the
opinion VI the court, said;
1.-The power vested in Congress to regu
late commerce among the several State.
Is the power to prescribe the rule By
which that commerce is to bo governed
and is power complete In itself, acknow-
lodging no limitations other than those
prescribed In the constitution. 1t is Co
extensive with the subject on which II
acts and cannot be stopped at the externa
boundary OF State, but must enter its in
terror and must be capable OF authorizing
introduces so that they may become min.
gled with the common property within the
territory entered.
"That ardent spirits are subjects of In
terstatc commerce cannot be denied
Whenever law Of q State amouuts es-
scntially to u regulation Of commerce, ns
l, does when II inhibits directly or indi
rectly tho receipt of an imported commoI
ity or its disposition before it has ceased
To become an article Of trade between one
State and another, II comes in conflict
with power which In this particular has
been exclusively In the general govern
ment, and is therefore void. Undoubtedly
it is for the legislative branch OF the
State governments to determine whethe,
traffic will injuriously affect the publ,
and it is for Congress to determine what
measures State may properly adopt as
appropriate or needful for the protection
OF the public morals, life, or safety; but
Notwithstanding, 1t Is not vested with
supervisory power over matters of local
administration; the responsibility is upo,
Congress, so far MS the regulation of inter
state commerce is concerned, to remove
the restriction upon the State in dealing
with imported articles which have no,
been mingled with the common mass of
property therein.
''Whatever our individual views may be
as to the dclcterious qualities Of particular
articles, we cannot hold that any articles
which Congress recognizes US subjects OF
interstate commerce are such or that they
can be controlled by State laws amounting
to regulations while they retain that char.
acter, although Mt the same time. ii di
rcctly dangerous TO themselves, the States
may take appropriate measures to guard
against injury before II obtains complete
Jurisdiction over them. 10 conccdc to d
State the power to exclude, directly or in.
directly, articles so situated without Con
grcssional permission is 10 conccdc to
majority OF the people OF n State, repre-
sentcd in the State legislature. the power
to regulate commercial intercourse be-
tween tho States by determining wha,
shall be Its subjects, when that power was
distinctly granted 70 be exercised by tne
people Of the United States. represented
IN Congress, and its possession by the lat
ter was considered essential to that more
perfect union which the constitution was
adopted to create.
"Updoubtedly there Is difficulty in draw.
ing the line between the municipal powers
OF the one government and the commercial
powers OF the other. But when that line
Is determined accommodation TO IL withou,
serious Inconvenience may be readily
found in frank and candid co operation
for the general good. The decision OF the
Sunrcme Court OF Iowa is reversed
JUSTICE GRAY's orIsIoS.
Justice Gray delivered dissenting
opinion In behalf OF himself and Justices
Harlan and Brewer. He says:
Common experience has shown that the
general and unrestricted use OF intoxicut-
ing liquors tends TO produce idleness, dis
order, disease, pauperism and crime. The
power OF regulating or prohibiting the
manufacture and sale OF Intoxicating liu-
tho police power, 10 the legislatures of the
several States, and can be judiciously and
effectively exercised by them alone, nc
cording TO their Views ofpublic policy and
local needs, and cannot practically, II II
can constitutionally, be welded by Con-
grcss aspart OF national and uniform
system.
The statutes In question were enacted
by the State of Iowa In the exercise of Its
undoubtcd power 10 protect its inhabitants
against the eviis-phy steal, moral and So
cial-attending tho FREQ use OF intoxicai-
Ing liquors They are not aimed at inter
state commerce; they have no relation 10
the movement Of goods from one State u
another, butopcrate only on Intoxicating
liquors within the territorial limits Of tine
State, they include NIL such liquors, with
out discrimination, and do not even men.
tion where they are made or whence they
come.
''lf tho statutes OF State restricting or
prohibiting the sale OF Intoxicating liquors
within It's territory are TO be held inopcra-
tive and void rs applied to liquors sent or
brought from another State and sold by
the importer In what nro called original
packages, tho consequence must be that
an inhabitant OF any State may. under the
pretext OF inter state commerce. and with.
out license or supervision OF nny public
authority, carry or send into, and sell In,
my or all OF the other Statas OF the Union,
Intoxicating liquors OF whatever dcscrip.
ton, in cases or kegs or even In single
bottles or TASKS, despite any legislation of
those States on tho subject. Aud, nj
though his own State should be tho only
one which had not enacted similar laws,
-. a Al a.