Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1890-04-29

Prohihitinr Prohibition.

y Zhe United States supreme court,
Geo judges dissenting, decides that the
SUor Of Congress to regulate commerce
tween the states prevents state from
hing, under Its laws, packages Of In
1kicattng beverages that have been
fought into it from other states. This
{ practically prohibition Of state pro-
klbition and compels the Prohibitionists
70 change their field Of labor and to seek
~ persuade Congress to permit the
rates to forbid the sale of intoxicating
Eeverages. We understand from the
laecIsion that q combination Of con-
I1esional and state legislation may ac-
omplish this prohibition, but that the
lent Of Congress Is needful under it's
Institutional power to regulate COM
nercs between the states.
b There IL no denial on any side Of this
Eongressional power and under 1t we
bolleve that It ID conceded that intoxi-
a1Ants may be imported into state which
o6fbids their sale but the contention Is
that after the liquor has entered the
1tate, the authority Of the state
controls its disposition and may forbid
~ sale. We understand the supreme
court to say that this may not be, since
- commodity that may be lawfully taken
Z Into state may be lawfully sold there,
o1se the power TO take II i'm would I've
Hooless and there would be practical
0enial Of the authority Of Congress over
61nter-state commerce.
It II settled that liquor may be taken
( into state that prohibits its sale and
S1nay be sold there in the original pack
- under federal authority despite the
&ttats prohibition. We understand how
Ever that the federal authority covers
'5o0ly the one sale In the original package
80 that tho importer must sell directly
- the consumer and the buyer must
eonsume tho whole of tho package and
Emay not sell 1t again situation that Is
& favorable to the vending Of liquor in
4 bottles but adverse to its sale In barrels
We are not surc that the supreme
oourt decision has this limitation, as II
4 = not distinctly stated, but II IL n fair
K inference from the argument made and
aH that the case called for. Kegs of beei
Il mt Into Iowa by an Illinois brewer had
d hem seized by the state officer, and ths
a4ueation before the court was whethe,
4 this had been done lawfully. The firs
Il eourt 70 guess said no, the second ye'
Esand the supreme court has followed with
"a ~ dnal no.
II is a question upon which there II
plenty Of room for two opinions. Con
Fsss regulates interstate commerce ant
he state regulates the conduct of III
pe0ple. The powers collide wher'
Ommcrce brings into the state tha
which 1t considers deleterious to Its pso
q pie. The authority OF Congress to fore,
VI y Into the state, If it exists, as the su prem,
I court declares, is Of doubtful prophet,
IN Its exercise. If the people of stat,
may lawfully prohibit the manufactur
Of Intoxicating beverages in Its territory
i II seems that its importation shoul,
& b. forbidden with like lawfulness
y and that congressional power should no
I balk the state in its government of II
people. 1t seems to be an unreasonabl
situation that is secured by this decision
In that the manufacturers Of liquo
4 outside state are given greater priv
Ieges than its own manufacturers cal
+ have and further that in a matter @
domestic policy the federal power nul
u lilies that OF the state.